











^^^^^ -4 5 f 

*^<,/,y>fya\.^^a. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



^mi.,-' \r 



:-r ,;^ 

•m'^-^' 



^v: 



J w-^m^sm 



■ ■■ fc^ 



What is Truth? 

AN ING^JIRY CONCERNING THE 

ANTIQUITY AND UNITY 

OF THE 

HUMAN RACE; 



AN EXAMINATION OF RECENT SCIENTIFIC 

SPECULATIONS ON THOSE 

SUBJECTS, 



BY 



REV. EBENEZER BURGESS, A. M., 

MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY, AUTHOR OF A MAHRATTA 

GRAMMAR, TRANSLATOR OF THE SURYA SIDDHANTA, 

ETC., ETC. 




PUBLISHED BY 

ISRAEL P. WARREN, 

52 Washington Street, 
BOSTON. 



"3566/ 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, 

By MRS. A. T. BURGESS, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



Stereotyped at the Boston Stereotype Foundry, 
No. 19 Spring Lane. 



I 



TO THE 

AMERICAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 
FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS 

IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, 

BY THE AUTHOR. 



TESTIMONIAL 



The following testimonial was adopted at the close of the 
author's twelve lectures, as expressive of the opinions of the 
auditors respecting their interest and value: — 

" We, the ladies and gentlemen of the city of Boston, who 
have attended the valuable and highly instructive course of 
lectures on the Antiquity of Man, delivered at the Lowell 
Institute, by the Rev. E. Burgess, do hereby express our 
hearty thanks and unqualified appreciation of the same. 

" We would also express the hope that our worthy and 
much esteemed friend, the Rev. E. Burgess, will at an early 
day publish the said lectures, in order that all may have the 
benefit of the important facts therein contained. 

" Ordered, That the foregoing resolutions be published in ' 
the daily papers in the city of Boston. 

"Boston, February 23, 1867." 



PREFACE. 



A DISTINGUISHED American scholar has recently put 
forth the following declaration respecting the subject 
discussed in the present volume : — 

" It has been supposed that the first introduction of 
man into the midst of this prepared creation was distant 
six or seven thousand years from our day, and we had 
hoped to be able to read the record of his brief career 
even back to its beginning ; but science is now accumu- 
lating so rapidly, and from so many quarters, proofs 
that the current estimate of his existence must be greatly 
lengthened out, — even perhaps many times multiplied, — 
that universal acceptation of this conclusion is not, it 
appears, much longer to be avoided." 

The opinion here expressed is — it may be safely said — 
that entertained by a large class of professedly scientific, 
senfi-scientific, and literary men of the day ; that is, judg- 
ing from the yearly reports of the meetings of the various 
scientific bodies, American and European, and papers 

5 



6 PREFACE. 

frequently found in certain prominent quarterlies and 
other periodicals. 

The object of the present volume is to show what 
science does teach in regard to the antiquity of man 
on earth. 

Science, in its true sense, is based on actual facts and 
established principles ; and a scientific conclusion is one 
that is fairly deduced from such facts and principles, 
though it is admitted that the words " science " and 
" scientific " have an appropriate use in connection with 
supposed factsl or in reasoning about things that are 
confessedly only probable, or possible. And there is no 
objection to the phrase " scientific speculation ; " for every 
science has connected with its true domain a margin — 
more or less wide — within which all things are, to say 
the least, not settled, and in which she must be allowed 
to speculate with the utmost freedom. It is only by al- 
lowing this freedom that the domain of true and real 
science can be enlarged. But always and everywhere 
great caution is to be observed in regard to taking a fact 
or principle belonging to this doubtful margin within the 
field of true science. The non-observance of this caution, 
it is well known, has been the occasion of endless and 
bitter disputes among scientific men. 

Another caution is needed in this connection. In ad- 
ducing scientific evidence in any discussion, it should be 
kept in mind that it makes a difference whether the 



PREFACE. 7 

alleged facts are derived from the speculative margin of 
the science concerned, or from its posit' ve domain ; e. g., 
when a demonstrated fact in astronom}' or chemistry is 
brought forward, it should have the weight of scientific 
truth ; but when the alleged fact is a part of some theory 
or hypothesis not yet established, it certainly is not en- 
titled to the same weight. Is not this principle, though 
so very obvious, often overlooked in so-called scientific 
reasoning ? 

Has it not especially been overlooked in the discussions 
of the subject treated of in this volume ? 

This suggests another important fact, viz., that indi- 
cated by the very common and trite remark, — so common 
that an apology almost is required for introducing it, — 
that all the sciences harmonize among themselves ; that 
one science can not conflict with another ; that a truth 
in one of her departments is consistent with all truth in 
every other department. 

Science ! Scientijic Knowledge ! Not supposition ! 
Knowledge of things in heaven above, in the earth be- 
neath, and the waters under the earth ! Knowledge of 
God, of .angels, demons, and men ! Knowledge of matter 
and spirit ! Knowledge, in short, of whatever can be 
known in this wide universe, whether connected with 
matter or mind, or the abstract principles of things ! It is 
true that there are things in the universe — or it is proba- 
ble there are — respecting which so little is known that 



8 • PREFACE. 

they have not yet been assigned their true place in the 
realm of science. But in general, it may be said that the 
realm of science embraces the whole universe. But this 
universe is one, having one Author, and all its parts 
constituting one harmonious whole ; and these parts, as 
represented in the various sciences, properly understood, 
perfectly harmonize with each other. 

When Alexander's generals first saw the river Indus in 
the far east, they supposed it to be identical with the Nile, 
with which they were familiar in the west. This was in 
accordance with the well-known principle of the human 
mind to generalize all its knowledge. It was well enough, 
only they were a little hasty in their generalization. It is 
-true the Nile and the Indus belong to the same system, as 
we may say, the facts connected with them being dis- 
cussed by the same science. Does not this incident often 
find a parallel in the scientific speculations that have been 
recorded since the time of Alexander to the present day ? 
How often is the gap between a meager premise and the 
conclusion as wide as that between the Indus and the 
Nile ! — the interval being unexplored, and as unknown 
as was that which separated those ancient rivers. The 
literature of the subject discussed in the present volume 
abounds in such cases. 

In order that the importance, drift, and application of 
these general remarks may be appreciated, 'a few specifi- 
cations are called for. 



PREFACE. 9 

It has been said that all the sciences are parts of one 
whole, and consequently must harmonize together ; that 
the facts of one science, rightly interpreted, can not conflict 
with those of another. This being the case, it follows 
that no one science has a right to decide a point, or regard 
a point as decided, — though it be clearly within her 
domain, — until she has obtained the concurrence of all 
her sister sciences. 

As illustrative of this principle, let us take one or two 
obvious cases. 

Philology, according to some of her students, says the 
great diversity of languages proves that these languages 
could not have had a common origin, or that the great 
diversity in the languages spoken by mankind proves the 
plural origin of the human races ; and with a parade of 
facts makes out a plausible argument. But here other 
sciences, as ethnology, mythology, physiology, and natu- 
ral history in some of her departments, step in and claim 
a right to have a voice in the discussion. Ethnology and 
mythology prove, or render highly probable, e. g., the 
common origin of the Semitic nations with those called 
Indo-European^ and the same with other peoples speaking 
diverse languages, affording strong analogical ground for 
extending the argument to all mankind ; and physiology 
a^d natural history claim that they prove the common 
origin of the human race. On whichever side the weight 
of argument may be thought to be by the opposing advo- 



lO PREFACE. 

cates, it is evident tnat all the sciences named above, and 
perhaps others, have a right to be heard in the discussion. 
Other illustrations of the principle here contended for 
might be adduced. 

The author is deeply sensible of the imperfections of 
his work. As the reader sees these imperfections, he is 
asked to call to mind that the field traversed in the argu- 
ment is very wide, and that one mind, unless it be of 
uncommon grasp, could not be expected to be equally 
familiar with every part of it, and do equal justice to all 
the points that are discussed. 

The author does not profess to have done justice to any 
point, but hopes, imperfect as it is, his work will be found 
of some value as a part of the literature of the subject 
under discussion, and especially in the presentation of 
the facts upon which a correct decision must be based. 

With these remarks, and with great diffidence, the 
work is submitted to the judgment of the candid public. 



NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 



The excellent author of this work was called to his 
rest before he had completed its preparation for the press. 
It was a work which had occupied his attention more or 
less for many years, and believing it called for by the 
growing skepticism of the times, — a belief confirmed by 
the opinions of many scholars and divines whom he had 
made acquainted with his plan, — he ardently desired 
that it might be given to the world,- as the last labor of a 
life which had long been devoted to the service of divine 
truth. It was in accordance with this desire that the 
manuscripts were placed in the hands of another for revis- 
ion and publication. 

It was not the expectation of the author to offer the 
fruits of his own independent investigation, except, per- 
haps, when discussing the literature and religion of India, 
where he had spent many years of missionary sei'vice. 
He aimed only to gather up the results which had been 
reached by the best authorities on the various branches of 
the subject, and present them in a popular form for the 
benefit of those who have not time nor opportSiity to study 
it for themselves. His book, therefore, is a book for the 
-people^ rather than for savants. We Jjclieve it will be 
very valuable to clergymen, teachers, Ad others, for that 

purpose. A^ 

II 



12 NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 

The work was left by the author in its original form, 
comprising Twelve Lectures, with copious materials de^ 
signed to be placed in an Appendix. So' great, however, 
are the inconveniences of that form for the discussion of 
such a subject, compelling a reduction of the most im- 
portant topics within the single hour of the lecture, and 
involving repetitions and recapitulations not needed in a 
written work, that, with the approval of his family, the 
lecture form has been dropped, and the subdivisions 
arranged in chapters, as is customary. Many of the ma- 
terials which had been designed for the Appendix have 
been brought forward and incorporated into the body of 
the work. This has, of course, necessitated some re- 
arrangement and some revision of the language of the 
lectures. In some instances ampler citations from author- 
ities have been given, and in a very few cases, a fuller 
elaboration of the positions taken has been ventured on, 
to give more completeness or clearness to the discussion ; 
but in no case has anything been advanced differing from 
the author's well-known views. For those views, of 
course, he would hold himself alone responsible. 

The editor regrets that he has not in all instances been 
able to verify the quotations introduced into the work. 
They are from a very wide range of reading, and many 
of the books referred to are not within present reach. He 
has done what he could to secure entire accuracy, both in 
form and language ; but it is possible that some errors 
exist which have been overlooked. 

W. 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Preface, 5 

Note by the Editor, ii 



CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. 



19 

20 
21 

22 

23 
24 
24 
25 
27 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 



The Subject recently come into Notice, 

Former general Assent to the Bible Chronology, 

Origin of recent Doubts on the Subject, 

Modern Geological Discoveries, . 

Ethnology and Comparative Philology, 

Systems of Chronology, . 

Sj'stem of Bunsen, .... 

System of Boeckh, 

System of Rodier, ..... 

Call for a new Consideration of the Subject 

View of the Scripture Chronology, 
The three Versions of the Pentateuch, 
Period I. From the Creation to the Flood, . 
Period II. From the Flood to the Birth of Abraham, 
Period III. From the Birth of Abraham to the Exodus, 35 
Period IV. From the Exodus to the Foundation of the 

Temple, 36 

Period V. From the Foundation of the Temple to its 

Destruction, 38 

Period VI. From the Destruction of the Temple to 
the Birth of Christ, ....... 40 

Dates according to various Authors, .... 42 

Testimony of Megasthenes, 45 

Testimony of Abu-MAshar, 45 

Testimony of Demetrius Phalereus, .... 46 
Testimony of Eupolemus, •47 

CHAPTER II. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
I. Egypt. 



Sources of our Knowledge of Egyptian Antiquities, 

1. The Temples and Monuments, .... 

2. Literary Remains, 

3. Greek Historians, ...... 

I. Testimonies relating to Pre-historic TtJiies, 
Diogenes Laertius, ..... 
Diodorus Siculus, 

13 



49 
49 
50 
50 

52 
52 
53 



H 



CONTENTS. 



Herodotus, . 
Pomponius Mela, 
The Old Chronicle, 
Eusebius, 

Julius Africanus, . 
Castor, . 
Practical Value of this Testimony, 
The Accounts not to be taken literally, 
The Accounts inconsistent with each other 
Months reckoned as Years, . 
The Zodiac of Denderah, 
Stobart's Wooden Tablets, . 
II. Testimonies relating to Historic Times 
Egyptian Chronology without Dates, . 
Manetho, his History and Writings, 
His Lists of Dynasties, 

1. Their Sources unknown, 

2. Their present Form corrupt, 

3. Internal Evidence against them, . 

4. They are contradicted, . 

a. By the Old Chronicle 

b. "^y Eratosthenes, . 

c. Byjosephus, . 

d. By the Monuments, 



53 

53 

53 
53 
54 

56 

56 
56 
57 
61 

65 
67 
67 
68 
69 
71 
71 
72 

73 
73 

74 
77 
79 



CHAPTER III. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 

{Continued.^ 

II. Greece akd Rome. 



Identity of Origin between the Greeks and Romans, 
Practical Character of the Greeks, 



The highest Date in Grecian History B. 

The Siege of Troy mythical, . 

The alleged Date of it, . 

Its Value as an Era in Chronology, 

The Greeks did not claim a remote Antiquitj'. 

Date of the Founding of Rome uncertain. 

Three principal Theories, .... 



c. 776, 



85 
86 
86 

87 



89 
89 
90 



CHAPTER IV. 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 

{Continued.) 

III. The Chaldeans. 
Extravagant Claims of the Chaldeans, . .... 91 

Berosus, his History and Writings, . • • • .92 
His Annals of an Antediluvian Kingdom, .... 93 

The ten Kings, ......... 94 

The Account mythical, ........ 95 

Elements of true History contained in them, ... 95 

Chaldean Measures of Time, . . ... . . -95 

Earliest Historical Dynasty B. C. 2458, .... 102 



CONTENTS. 



15 



CHAPTER V. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 

{Cofitimied.) 

IV. The Hindus. 

Importance of the Discovery of the Sanskrit, . . . 103 

View of the Sanskrit Literature, ...... 104 

The Vedas, 104 

The Upavedas, ......... 105 

The Vedangas, ........ 105 

The Upangas, 105 

This Literature has no historical Vahie, .... 106 

Comparison between the Hindus and Greeks, . . . 109 

Origin of the Vedas, ........ iii 

Contents of the Vedas, 112 

Antiquity of the Vedas, . . . . . . . • 113 



CHAPTER VI. 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 

{Continued.) 



V. The Chinese. 



First Explorers of Chinese Literature, . 
Jesuit Missionaries, .... 

Protestant Missionaries, 

1. View of the Chinese Chronology, 
The Ante-historic Period, . 
The Semi-histo<-ic Period, . 
The Historic Period, . 

2. How far is this Chronology reliable. 
Views of Pauthier, 
Views of Amiot, .• . . . 
Views of Williams, 
Examination of the Elements of Computation, 

The Chinese Year, 

The Cycle of Sixty Years, 

Statements of Rev. J. Chalmers, 

Statements of Dr. Legge, 

The Cycle of Sixty borrowed, . 

Chronology dates only from the Chi 

The Materials of it unreliable. 

Portions of it mythical, 

The Shu-king, how compiled. 

Its Destruction and Recovery, 

Earliest historical Date B. C. 2637, 



CHAPTER VII. THE ARGUMENT FROM ETHNOLOGY 



Descent of all known Nations from Noah, 
The tenth Chapter of Genesis, 
Descendants of Shem, .... 



istian Era 



118 
118 
120 
120 
121 
122 
122 
123 
124 
124 
126 
126 
127 
129 
130 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
139 
142 



144 

145 
146 



i6 



CONTENTS. 



Descendants of Japheth, 

Descendants of Ham, 

Agreement of this Account with History, 
The so-called Aboriginal Races, .... 
Scripture Language not to be pressed too literally, 
Earlier and later Departures from original Seats, 
Alleged Aborigines of Egypt, .... 

Evidence from Names of the Country and People, 

Evidence from Physical Characteristics and Language, 

Evidence from the Monuments, 
Alleged Aborigines of India, . 

Of Northern India, 

Of Southern India, .... 
Alleged Aborigines of Western Europe, 
Historic Times but little before J. Caesar, 
These Aborigines were of Celtic Origin, 



147 
149 

151 
152 

153 
155 
158 

159 
160 
162 

163 
164 

165 
166 
167 
167 



CHAPTER VIII. THE ARGUMENT FROM PHYSIOLOGY. 



Rise of the Doctrine of a Plurality of Origin, 
La Peyrere, his Character and Writings, 
Voltaire and Rousseau's Espousal of it. 
Its supposed Bearings on Slavery, 
Agassiz's Theory of Natural Provinces, 

Theory of Unity of Species, 
Estimate of this Theory, 
I. It is a mere Theory, 
II. Alleged Inconsistency with the Bible not real, 
The Case of Cain, 
The Case of Cain's Wife, . •- 
Diversities among Races, . 

1. Man is of a single Species, 
a. Identity in Mental and Physical Charac 

teristics, 

h. The single Head of the Animal Kingdom, 

c. Intermixture of Races fertile, 

d. Unity of Species proves Unity of Origin, 

2. Changes are now constantly taking place, 

3. Analogous Changes among Animals, 

III. This Theory contrary to Analogy, 

IV. Is opposed by Theological and Moral Science 
All Men possess the same Moral Nature, . 
All Men sustain the same Moral Relations, 



170 
170 
172 

173 
174 
177 
179 
179 
180 
180 
181 
1S2 
183 

184 
186 
189 
193 
195 
202 
202 
206 
207 
208 



CHAPTER IX. THE ARGUMENT FROM LANGUAGE. 

The Hebrew once thought the Primitive Language, . . 209 
Discovery of the Sanskrit, ....... 210 

Views of Stewart, . 210 



CONTENTS. 



17 



Views of Lord Monboddo, 211 

Labors of Sanskrit Scholars, . . . . . •213 

Key to the Classification of Languages, .... 214 

Three great Families of Languages, ..... 215 

I. The Aryan Family, 215 

IL The Semitic Family, 216 

III. The Turanian Family, 218 

Classification according to Structure, ..... 221 

1. Monosyllabic Languages, ..'.... 222 

2. Agglutinative Languages, ...... 222 

3. Inflectional Languages, . . . . . . 223 

Bearing of the Diversity of Languages on the Argument, 223 

1. The Miraculous Confusion of Tongues, . . . 224 

2. Languages have still much in common, . . . 225 

3. Differences diminish as our Knowledge increases, . 227 

4. Languages subject to rapid Changes, . . . 229 

CHAPTER X. THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION. 



Traditions of Primitive Ages to be expected. 
Such Traditions exist, .... 
Independent Traditions only valuable, 

1. Traditions of one God, 

2. Traditions of the Creation, . 

3. Traditions of the Garden of Eden, 

4. Traditions of the Temptation and Fall, 

5. Traditions of a Sevenfold Division of Time, 

6. Traditions of the Deluge, .... 

Among the Mexicans and Peruvians, 

Among the Greeks, 

Among the Phrygians, . 

Among the Chaldeans, . 

Among the Chinese, 

Among the Egyptians, 

Among the Hindus, 



235 
236 

237 
238 

239 
243 
244 
245 
246 
246 

247 
249 
250 

252 
253 

254 



CHAPTER XI. THE ARGUMENT FROM MYTHOLOGY. 



Mythology, its Nature, ........ 261 

All Myths founded in Fact, 262 

Examples of modern Myths, ....... 264 

Characteristics of Greek Writers, ...... 266 

Specimens of their Mistakes, . . . . . . . 267 

I. All Mythologies had a common Origin, . . . 270 

The Roman and Greek Mythologies, .... 271 

The Egyptian, ......... 271 

The Phoenician and Chaldean, 272 

The Hindu, 272 



l8 CONTENTS. 



II. That Origin in the Bible Narrative, . . . . 273 

Myths of the Creation, 274 

Myths of the Flood, 275 

Myths of the Antediluvians, 276 

Myths of Noah, 277 

Myths of the Ark, . 280 

Myths of the Dove, 282 

Myths of the Rainbow, ....... 284 

Myths of the eight Persons saved, 286 

Myths of Noah's three Sons, 288 

CHAPTER XII. THE ARGUMENT FROM GEOLOGY. 

Alleged Facts proving a Remote Antiquity, . . . 287 

1. Fragments of Brick and Pottery from Egypt, . . 287 
The Data not verified, . . . . . . 290 

Changes in the Nile Valley, ..... 291 

Burnt Brick unknown to the Ancient Egyptians, . 292 

2. Human Fossil in Mississippi Valley, .... 293 

3. Skeleton found near New Orleans, .... 295 

4. Remains in the Florida Coral Reefs, . . . . 300 

5. Flint Implements in the Valley of the Somme, . . 300 
Geological History of the Valley, .... 302 
No Proof that the Remains were contemporaneous, . 304 
No Proof of their extreme Antiquity, . . . 306 
Geological Changes in the Valley, .... 308 
Assumed to be wrought by existing Agencies, . -311 
The Assumption rejected by various Authors, . . 312 

6. Human Remains in Peat-bogs, etc., .... 320 
The Stone, the Iron, and the Bronze Age, . . 321 
The Remains belonged to the Celtic Race, . . 322 



APPENDIX. 

A. Chronology of Bunsen, 327 

B. Chronology of Boeckh, , 348 

C. Chronology of Rodier, . . . . . . 349 

D. Manetho, 357 

E. Manetho's Lists, 359 

F. The Old Chronicle, . . . . . . . 377 

G. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, .... 378 

H. Manetho, according to Josephus, .... 383 

I. Chinese Astronomy, ....... 391 

J. Superficial Character of Diversities between 

Races, 393 

K. Variations in Species among Domestic Animals, 401 

L. Visit of Dionusos to India, . . . . . 412 

M. Chinese Theology, 413 

N. The Celts in Europe, ....... 417 



ANTIQUITY 



AND 



UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY. — VIEW OF THE BIBLE CHRONOLOGY. 

The Subject recently come into Notice. — Former general Assent 
to the received Chronologj of Man's Creation. — Testimony 
of Hitchcock and Lyell. — Origin of recent Doubts concerning 
it. — Geological Discoveries. — Ethnology and Comparative 
Philology. — Systems of Chronology. — System of Bunsen. — 
System of Bo6ckh. — System of Rodier. — These Systems 
never critically examined, — Call for a new Discussion of the 
Subject. — View of the Scripture Chronology. — Three Ver- 
sions of the Pentateuch. — Period I. From the Creation to the 
Flood. — II. From the Flood to the Birth of Abraham.— 
III. From the Birth of Abraham to the Exodus. — IV. From 
the Exodus to the Founding of the Temple. — V. From the 
Founding of the Temple to its first Destruction. — VI. From 
the Destruction of the Temple to the Birth of Christ. — State- 
ments of heathen Writers. 

The Antiquity of Man is one of those subjects 
which have very recentl}' come into prominent notice 
^mong learned men. It is scarcely a fourth of a 

19 



20 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

century since the apparent teachings of the Bible 
chronology, which fix his creation at less than six 
thousand years ago, were generally received with- 
out question. For a little time, indeed, the discov- 
eries of the new science of geology had disturbed 
the commonly received views on this subject, as 
astronomy in the days of Copernicus and Galileo 
had so greatly modified the ancient theories of the 
physical structure of the universe. But a re-examina- 
tion of the sacred text, with the aid of a broader phi- 
lology, soon demonstrated that there was no neces- 
sary discrepancy between it and the new science ; 
nay, even derived fresh evidence from the very facts 
adduced by the latter in support of its own correct- 
ness. It was seen that the first verse of Genesis, 
" In the beginning God created the heavens and the 
earth," would permit the date of the creation to be 
carried back to any indefinite antiquity, leaving the 
subsequent account to cover successive periods in 
which the earth was fitted for human abode, stocked 
with the present species of vegetable and animal life, 
and lastly, crowned with the introduction of man, the 
destined lord and proprietor of all. In this fact of 
the comparatively recent origin of man, Genesis and 
geology were entirely agreed. Says Dr. Hitchcock, 
"As to the period when the creation of such a being 
by the most astonishing of all miracles took place, I 



THE HUMAN RACE. 21 

believe there is no diversity of opinion. At least all 
agree that it was very recent ; nay, although geology 
can rarely give chronological dates, but only a suc- 
cession of events, she is able to say, from the monu- 
ments she deciphers, that man can not have occu- 
pied the globe more than six thousand years." Sir 
Charles Lyell also, in his " Principles of Geology " 
(vol. i. p. 240), a v^ork published before the recent 
disco\ieries of fossil human remains, remarks, " I 
need not dwell on the proofs of the low antiquity of 
our species, for it is not controverted by any ex- 
perienced geologist : indeed, the real difficulty con- 
sists in tracing back the signs of man's existence on 
the earth to that comparatively modern period when 
species now his contemporaries began to predom- 
inate. If there be a difference of opinion respecting 
the occurrence in deposits of the remains of man 
and his work, it is always in reference to strata con- 
fessedly of the most modern order ; and it is never 
pretended that our race co-existed with assemblages 
of animals and plants, of which all, or even a great 
part, of the species are extinct." 

Until very recently, therefore, the researches of 
science, and the supposed teachings of the Scriptures 
respecting the age of man on the earth, had been in 
entire accord. But within the last twenty years a 
series of investigations has been made which to 



22 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

some extent have again awakened doubt on this 
subject. Human bones and implements of labor 
and defense, together with domestic utensils, and 
even rude attempts of art, have been found in ancient 
peat beds, in bone caverns, and in the shallow lakes 
of Europe, in such geological connections as seem to 
demand for them a much higher antiquity than has 
hitherto been claimed for the race. Professor H. D. 
Rogers, of the University of Glasgow, writing in 
i860, remarks, " Geologists and archaeologists have 
recently somewhat startled the public by announcing 
the discovery, in the north-east of France and the 
adjacent corner of England, of supposed indications 
of the existence of the human race in the remote 
age when these tracts were inhabited by the extinct 
elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, and other an- 
imals whose bones are preserved in the diluvium, or 
great superficial deposit attributed to the last wide 
geological inundation." * 

These researches have been pursued with great 
industry and zeal, and are already giving us a new 
science, not yet twenty years old, called "pre- 
historic archaeology." "It is," says Lenormantjf 
" like all sciences which are still in their infancy, pre- 
sumptuous, and claims, at any rate in the case of 

* Blackwood's Magazine, October, i860, p. 422. 

t Manual of the Ancient History of the East. Vol. i. pp. 24, 25. 



THK HUMAN RACE. 23 

some of its adepts, to overturn tradition, to abolish all 
authority, and to be the only exponent of the prob- 
lem of our origin. These are bold pretensions which 
will never be realized. Prehistoric archaeology, 
moreover, is yet but in its infancy; it still leaves 
great gaps, and many problems without solution. 
There is too often a desire to establish a system, and 
many scholars hasten to build theories on an insuf- 
ficient amount of observations. Finally, all the facts 
of this science are not yet established with perfect 
certainty." 

These claims for the high antiquity of man, derived 
from his fossil remains, have been fortified by similar 
claims deduced from the related sciences of eth- 
nology and comparative philology. It is argued 
that the present races of men, with their great diver- 
sities of feature, color, and language, could not, 
according to any known rate or law of change, have 
descended from a single pair within the period that 
has elapsed since the received date of the creation, 
or rather of the deluge of Noah. Some, indeed, go 
further, and deny altogether the Bible doctrine of 
the unity of the race, insisting both upon its plu- 
rality of origin and its vast antiquity. As these 
views will be considered hereafter at length, it is 
only necessary to remark here that they are advo- 
cated with great zeal, and a display of learning 



24 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

which is well calculated to confound, if it does not 
convert, the believers in the Mosaic narrative, espe- 
cially those whose time and attainments will not 
permit them to examine the subject for themselves. 

In accordance with these claims of recent scien- 
tific research, numerous elaborate systems of chro- 
nology have been constructed, all of enormous 
reach. Some of these systems, indeed, are not 
new ; but inasmuch as they never before acquired 
any credit beyond that of mere speculation, they did 
not seriously disturb the faith of mankind in the 
chronology of the Bible. It may not be inappropri- 
ate to give an outline of these speculations in this 
place, partly because they will not need any ex- 
tended consideration further, and partly since they 
will serve to show us, at the outset, the extravagance 
of those speculations, as contrasted with the mod- 
erate and reasonable teachings of the Scriptures. 

It has been remarked * that not less than ninety- 
seven systems of chronology have been put forth, 
some of them professing to be derived from the 
Bible, but most of them avowedly and irreconcilably 
differing from it. There are three of these which 
are specially worthy of notice, viz., the systems of 
Bunsen, Boeckh, and Rodier. 

The system of Baron Bunsen is too elaborate to 

* Iteler, in Halma's Almageste, vol. iv. p. 165. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 25 

be fully set forth here. In this system the creation 
of man is placed at B. C. 20,ocx), the flood of Noah 
at B. C. 10,000, the founding of the Egyptian em- 
pire by Menes at B. C. 3623, the birth of Abraham 
at B. C. 2870, the exodus at B. C. 1320, &c. For 
his reasons for these dates, and for a consideration 
of the value of his system, see Appendix, A. 

The chronological system of Boeckh * is confined 
to Egyptian history and antiquities. According to 
this writer, Hepagstus, the first god-king of Egypt, 
began to reign on the 20th of July, B. C. 30,522. 
He reigned nine thousand years, and was followed 
by other gods, as Sol, Typhon, Horus, Jupiter, &c., 
then by demigods, heroes, and manes. Of the 
gods there were three dynasties, of demigods three, 
together extending through nineteen thousand and 
twenty-four years. These were followed by a 
dynasty of manes, ruling five thousand eight hun- 
dred and thirteen years. The whole period thus 
embraced under the government of the gods, demi- 
gods, and manes, which he styles tem^us niythicum 
(the mythic period), amounts to twenty-four thou- 
sand eight hundred and thirty-seven years, reach- 
ing down to July 20, B. C. 5702. Then follow 
historic times. 

* See MGller's Fragmenta Hist. Grsec, vol. ii. pp. 599-606, 
at the close of a resume of the fragments that have been pre- 
served of Manetho. 



26 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Menes, the first mortal king of Egypt, begins his 
reign July 20, B. C. 5702. The chronology of 
thirty-one dynasties of kings is then given, extend- 
ing to the conquest of Egypt by Alexander, Novem- 
ber 14, B. C. 332, in the thirty thousand two hun- 
dred and twelfth year of the world. Of ten or 
twelve dynasties he gives the date only of the 
beginning and the end ; of others he gives that of 
the individual kings ; so that from Menes, July 20, 
B. C. 5702, to Alexander, November 14, B. C. 332, 
a period of five thousand three hundred and seventy 
years, we have one hundred an'd sixty-five dates, 
assigned with a precision that extends to the very 
day of the month ! 

This feature of the chronology, as it seems to me, 
is alone sufficient to stamp it as utterly unworthy of 
confidence. The first god-king begins to reign pre- 
cisely on the 20th of July, thirty thousand five hun- 
dred and twenty-two years before Christ ! Then fol- 
low gods, demigods, and manes, i. e., demons, for 
exactly twenty-four thousand eight hundred and 
thirty-seven years, till the accession of Menes, 
July 20, B. C. 5702 ! The first dynasty of human 
kings, eight in number, lasts from July 20, B. C. 
5702, till May 18, B. C. 5449 ! And so on -to the 
end of the chapter. Surely the student of history 
has a right to know on what grounds an author 



THE HUMAN RACE. 2*J 

bases such definiteness and precision in periods of 
high antiquity. The unlearned and credulous are 
likely to receive all this as the simple truth, when 
they see it so confidently put forth by an author of 
acknowledged eminence. For a more comprehen- 
sive view of the system, and of its real value, see 
Appendix, B. 

In 1862, a work on chronology was published at 
Paris by Rodier, entitled, " Antiquity of the Human 
Races ; Reconstruction of the Chronology and His- 
tory of the Primitive Peoples, by an Examination of 
the original Documents, and by Astronomy." * In 
a second edition, which appeared in 1864, the 
author says, in his preface, that he has neglected no 
occasion and no means of eliciting criticism for the 
detection of errors ; but as no criticisms of conse- 
quence have been offered, he issues the second edi- 
tion as a simple reprint of the first. He evidently 
has increased confidence in the soundness of his 
work from the favor with which it was received. 

The 'following paragraphs from the Introduction, 
showing the author's claims for his work, are all I 
need quote in this place : — 

" To show clearly the field of discussion ^ let us an- 

* Antiquite des Races Humaines ; Reconstitution de la Chro- 
nologic et I'Histoire des Peuples Primitifs, par rExamen des 
Documents originaux et par TAstronomie. Par G. Rodier. 
Deuxieme 6d. Paris, 1844, 8vo., pp. 454. 



28 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

nounce, in the outset, that we are able to demonstrate 
with precision {en inesure de demontrer)., both chrono- 
logically and astronomically, the following epochs, viz. : — 

"The epoch of the year 14,611 B. C, the Egyptian 
period called Ma. 

" The epoch of the Egyptian calendar at the end of the 
seventh dynasty, in fhe year B. C. 4266. 

" The epoch of a reform of the Babylonian calendar, 
about the year B. C. 2783. 

" The epoch of the reform of the Iranian calendar, by 
King Djemschid, about the year B. C. 700O5 according to 
the chronology, or precisely in the year 7048, according 
to the cycles and astronomical verifications. 

" The epoch of the commencement of the period, called 
the Satya Tuga of the Hindus, in the year B. C. 13,901. 

" The commencement of the Treta Tuga of the same 
people, in the year B. C. 9101. 

" Several other epochs are capable of verification by 
astronomy, but with less precision ; for example, the era 
of the Manavantaras in India, corresponding to the year 
B. C. 19,3375 the era of Thoth in Egypt, corresponding 
to B. C. 17,932, &c., &c. 

" All these eras constitute a complete whole {pnt entre 
elles une solidarite)^ more or less perfect, but undeniable 
and characteristic ; they proceed one from another by 
a filiation which becomes evident as soon as one has 
caught a glimpse of it. There are thus revealed, among 
the primitive peoples, connections and reciprocal in- 
fluences of which history has lost the remembrance. 

" We well know that to announce that our researches 



THE HUMAN RACE. 29 

lead to such results is to mark them for the contempt, 
perhaps even the hostility, of our readers. Every new- 
truth assails at its birth old opinions, which never disap- 
pear without offering a resistance more or less active and 
determined. Reason always ends, however, by triumph- 
ing over opposition. Profoundly convinced that our 
work re-establishes in their ancient rights very important 
truths which have been long obscured by a fatal misap- 
prehension, we present it with confidence to the small 
number of readers who may be disposed to examine it 
without taking sides in advance." Appendix, C. 

Such are the leading features of three elaborate 
systems of chronology, which profess to extend the 
period of man's existence to from twenty to thirty- 
thousand years before Christ. They fall in with 
and seem to strengthen the geological and ethno- 
logical arguments for a high human antiquity. 
And I am not aware that the principles and details 
of either of them have been subjected to a critical 
examination. The consequence is, that our common 
system (or systems, for there are several, according 
to the different versions used) of Bible chronology 
is rejected as unworthy of credence. Many devout 
believers in inspiration, indeed, who till recently 
had never doubted its correctness, already feel their 
faith in it shaken. A professor in one of our 
colleges writes me that very recently he was visiting 
the geological cabinet in company with a friend 



N 
30 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

and professed geologist, when, as they were look- 
ing at a stone adz, his friend remarked that it was 
certainly the work of man, and "gave unquestion- 
able evidence, by the situation in which it was found, 
of being at least one hundred thousand years old." 
Similar opinions are finding frequent expression in 
our current popular literature. One of our most 
respectable daily papers, after giving an account 
of a late meeting of the British Association for the 
Advancement of Science, in which the discoveries 
in the river-drifts and caves of France and England 
were related, remarks, " The results of these 
researches thus far must revolutionize the long- 
accepted theory of the age of man, and add many 
thousand years (we dare not venture to say how 
many) to the period when it is believed he first 
trod the earth." * 

In view of these things, is there not a call for a 
new* and thorough discussion of the question thus 
involved? If man has existed on the earth twenty, 
fifty, or a hundred thousand years, what, precisely, 
is the evidence of it? What traces of his existence 
during that long period has he left behind him? 
Do the facts adduced in opposition to the common 
view, when carefully and candidly weighed, prove 
what is claimed for them? Do they invalidate the 

* Providence Daily Journal, October 4, 1866. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 3 1 

authority and accuracy of the sacred Scriptures? 
Especially is it important to ascertain what are the 
facts. In dealing with these matters, writers have 
substituted speculations for facts, until the reader 
often knows not what to attribute to the one and 
what to the other. He who can eliminate the one 
from the other, who can show distinctly w^hat is 
properly substantiated as truth, and what is hypo- 
thetical and imaginary, will perform a real, though 
it be humble, service both to the cause of science 
and the Bible. Such is the object which I have 
proposed to myself in this work. And if in some 
instances, as will unavoidably be the case, it shall, 
from a deficiency of the data, be necessary, in order 
to bridge over a chasm, to make suppositions and 
draw inferences, — in other words to speculate, — I 
shall endeavor to do it in such a way that m}'^ readers 
shall know I am speculating, and not reciting facts. 

Inasmuch as the question before us implies a 
comparison between the Bible Chronology and that 
alleged to be demonstrated by Science, there will be 
an advantage in exhibiting the former in this place. 

What, then, do the Scriptures teach us as 

TO THE AGE OF MAN ON THE EARTH? 

It is well known that there are considerable dis- 
crepancies in the conclusions which have been 



32 ANTIOyiTY AND UNITY OF 

reached by different authors on this subject. The 
ages of the patriarchs who lived before Abraham 
are variously given in the three ancient versions of 
the Pentateuch, the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and 
the Greek of the Septuagint, the variations amount- 
ing in the aggregate to about fifteen hundred years. 
We have not space to go at length into the origin 
of these discrepancies, or attempt to decide positively 
which of them is most accurate. Each version may 
have been subject to alteration, perhaps by accident, 
perhaps also by design. I will only say that the 
numbers of the Septuagint appear to me the most 
probable, and best give the true chronology as re- 
corded by Moses, — a little indefiniteness being 
admitted as possible in consequence of various 
readings* 

The following is an outline of the chronology 
of the Septuagint, according to Our most approved 
texts of that version of the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures. These texts are, (i) that of Cardinal Mai's 
edition, which is after the celebrated Vatican MS., 
and, (2) that of Tischendorf, which is from a 
collation of most ancient MSS., the Vatican being 
the basis.* We make Mai our basis, giving the 
various readings of Tischendorf. 

* Tischendorf sajs in his title-page, "Textum Vaticanum 
Romanum emendatius edidit, . . . omnem lectionis varietatem 



THE HUMAN RACE. 33 

While it is not within our object to enter into any 
discussion in regard to the comparative claims of 
the Septuagint and Hebrew chronologies, still, in 
order to afford the facility of comparing the two, I 
shall notice the points of difference between them, 
and give a parallel synopsis of both at the close. 



*ERI< 


OD I. From the 


Creati 
Flood. 


ON OF Adam 


TO THE 




Years before Birth of a Son. 


Residue of Life. 


Whole Life. 


I. 


Adam, , 


230 


700 


930 


2. 


Seth, . 


205 


707 


912 


3- 


Enos, . 


190 


l^S 


905 


4- 


Cainan, 


170 


740 


910 


5- 


Malaleel, 


165 


730 


895 


6. 


Jared, . 


162 


800 


962 


7- 


Enoch, . 


165 


200 


365 


8. 


Methuselah, (167^ 


1 187 


782 


969 


9- 


Lamech, 


188 


565 


753 


lO. 


Noah to the flood, 


, 600 








(2242) 


2262 





The above table differs from a corresponding one 
drawn from the Hebrew in this : The lives of the 

Codicum Vetustiorum Alexandrini, Ephraemi Sjri, Friderico- 
Augustani, subjunxit." And Mai says (title-page), " Ex anti- 
quissimo Codice Vaticano." But as the first forty-six chapters 
of Genesis are wanting in this MS., we can eassilj^ account for 
the difference between Tischendorf and Mai in regard to some 
of the patriarchal numbers hereafter noticed. 

3 



34 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

lirst five and the seventh patriarchs, before the birth 
of the son who succeeded in the patriarchal hne, in 
the Hebrew, are just a century shorter, which cen- 
tury is added to the residue of life, making the 
whole life precisely the same ; the years of Lamech 
before the birth of Noah are, in the Hebrew, one 
hundred and eighty-two, his residue five hundred 
and ninety-five, and his whole life seven hundred 
and seventy-seven years, instead of as above. In 
the Hebrew, then, the duration of the period is 
sixteen hundred and fifty-six years. 

The various reading of one hundred and sixty- 
seven, in the life of Methuselah, is edited by Tis- 
chendorf. 

Period II. From the Flood to the Birth of 
Abraham. 

Years. 

Shem, after the flood to the birth of Arphaxad, 2 

1. Arphaxad, to the birth of a son, . . , 135 

2. Cainan, 130 

3. Sala, . 130 

4. Eber, 134 

5. Peleg, . . . , . . . .130 

6. Reu, . . . . . . . . 132 

7. Serug, 130 

8. Nahor, (79) 179 

9. Terah, 70 

10. Abraham born, (1072) 1172 



THE HUMAN RACE. 35 

According to the Hebrew, the lives of the first 
seven patriarchs (excluding Cainan) are just a hun- 
dred years shorter before the birth of a son, Cainan 
is entirely omitted, and the years of Nahor, previous 
to the birth of Terah, are only twenty-nine, making 
the period two hundred and ninet3^-two years.* 

The reading seventy-nine, in the life of Nahor, 
is found in many MSS., and is edited b}'' Grabe, 
and by Field in an edition of the LXX recently 
published by the Society for Propagating the Gos- 
pel. But one hundred and seventy-nine is edited 
by both Mai and Tischendorf, and, in fact, by almost 
all editors of the LXX. 

Period III. From the Birth of Abraham to thp: 
Exodus. 

In regard to the duration of this period there is 
no difference between the Septuagint and the He- 
brew. By a wonderful agreement of almost all 
chronologers, both ancient and modern, this duration 
is estimated at five hundred and five years. The 
texts upon which this estimate is based are the same 
in the Septuagint as in the Hebrew. These texts 
are. Gen. xii. 4 and Ex. xii. 40, 41. 

Abraham was seventy-five years old at the " Call," 

* Usher and some others — Hebraists — make this period three 
hundred and fifty-two years. This is done by making Abraham 
to be born in the one hundred and thirtieth year of Terah, com- 
paring Gen. xi. 32 with xii. 4. 



36 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

and the exodus was four hundred and thirty years 
after. For, by the consent of all the chronologers, 
the four hundred and thirty years began when the 
patriarch, at the divine call, left his land and kiur 
dred. And Paul corroborates this in his statement 
that the law came four hundred and thirty years 
after the promise. (Gal. iii. 17.) This interpreta- 
tion is strengthened by the particular reading of the 
Septuagint in Ex. xii. 40, this translation adding, 
after the words "who dwelt in Egypt," the words 
" and in Canaan." 

The chronology of this period, then, according to 
the Septuagint, is the same as in the Hebrew, viz. : — 

Abraham to the " Call," . . . . . 75 
, From the Call to the Exodus, . . 430 

Total, . 505 

Period IV. From the Exodus to the Foundation 
OF Solomon's Temple. 

This period is shorter according to the Septuagint 
than it is according to the Hebrew, and that whether 
we determine the duration by the single text, i 
Kings vi. i, or by the details of the current history. . 
In I Kings vi. i, it is said that the temple was 
begun four hundred and forty years * after the chil- 

* Five MSS. collated by Holmes and the Compl. Ed. have 
four hundred and eighty in i Kings yi. i. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 37 

dren of Israel came out of Egypt, and in the current 
history only twenty years are assigned to Eli instead 
of forty, as in the Hebrew. In all other respects 
the details are the same in both.* And both are 
alike indefinite in regard to the time of Joshua and 
the Elders, and that of Samuel and Saul. 

The duration of this period, then, according to 
the Septuagint, if we adopt the present reading of 
I Kings vi. i, is four hundred and forty years; but 
if we adopt the details in the current history, giving 
to Joshua twenty-seven years, according to the an- 
cient chronologers generally, and to Samuel and 
Saul forty, according to Paul (Acts xiii. 18-21), 
it is six hundred years, as follows : — 

Years. 

Moses in the desert, 40 

Joshua, 27 

I St Servitude (Mesop.), . 
Othniel, .... 
2d Servitude (Moab), 
Ehud and Shamgar, . 
3d Servitude (Canaan),.. 

* Clinton {Fasti Romania vol. ii., Append, p. 226) says the 
details from which the chronology of the period is determined 
are precisely the same in the LXX as in the Hebrew; and he 
presents the details in parallel columns in which forty years are 
assigned to Eli in the LXX. Parker (in a recent elaborate work 
on Chronology) says the same. See next note. 



Judges iii. 


8 


8 


. " iii. 


II 


40 


" iii. 


H 


18 


. " iii. 


30 


80 


" iv. 


3 


20 



1 

38 ANTIQUITY AND 


UNITY OF 










Years. 


Deborah and Barak, . 


Judges 


• V. 31 


40 


4th Servitude (Midian), 


u 


vi. I 


7 


Gideon, .... 


u 


viii. 28 


40 


Abimelech, . - . 


a 


ix. 22 


3 


Tola, ... . . 


a 


X. 2 


23 


Jair, .... 


u 


X. 3 


22 


5th Servitude (Philist.), 


(( 


X. 8 


18 


Jephthah, 


u 


xii. 7 


6 


Ibzan, . . . ^ 


u 


xii. 9 


7 


Elon, .... 


(( 


xii. II 


10 


Abdon, . . . 


44 


xii. 14 


8 


6th Servitude (Philist), 


(( 


xiii. I 


40 


Samson, . . Judges xv. 20, and 


xvi. 31 


20 


Eli, . . . 


. I Sam 


I. iv. 18 


20* 


Samuel and Saul, 


. 


. 


40 


David, .... 


. 


. 


40 


Solomon to foundation of the Temple, 


• 


3 



Total, . . . ^ . . 580 
Or, according to i Kings vi. i, 440. 

Period V. From the Foundation of Solomon's Tem- 
ple TO ITS Destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. 

There are some difficulties in the chronology of 
this period on account of discrepancies in the sacred 

* This is forty in the Complut. Aldine and Georg. Slav, edi- 
tions of the LXX, and some two or three MSS., as noted by 
Holmes. But all our present editions have twenty. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 



39 



text ; but these discrepancies are the same in the 
Septuagint as in the Hebrew, and the details in 
regard to numbers upon which the duration of the 
period rests are precisely the same in both, as fol- 
lows : — 



I. 

2. 

3- 

4- 
5- 
6. 

7- 
8. 

9- 

ID. 
II. 
12. 

^3- 
14. 

15- 

16. 
17- 



Solomon, 

Rehoboam, 

Abijam, current 3, complete, 

Asa, . 

Jehoshaphat, . 

Joram, current 8, complete, 

Ahaziah, 

Athaliah, .... 

Joash, 

Amaziah, .... 

Azariah, or Uzziah,. 

Jotham, . . . ' . 

Ahaz, current 16, complete, 

Hezekiah, .... 



Manasseh, 
Amon, 
Josiah, . 

18. Jehoahaz, . 

19. Jehoiakim, 

20. Jehoiachin, 

21. Zedekiah, 

Total, 
Or, as we may say, 427 years. 



Yrs. Mos. 

37 

17 

2 

41 

25 

7 
I 

6 

40 
29 

52 
16 

15 
29 

-55 
2 

31 

3 
II 

3 

II 

427 6 



40 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

A close examination of the history of the period 
shows that the numbers of some of the reigns should 
be reduced by one to denote complete years. Such 
we regard the third, sixth, and thirteenth reigns. 
The grounds for this conclusion will be seen on 
comparing i Kings i. i and i. lo, 2 Kings viii. i6 
and viii. 25, and xvi. i and xvii. i. We have put 
down the time of those reigns accordingly. 

Period VI. From the Destruction of the Temple by 
Nebuchadnezzar to the Birth of Jesus Christ. 

The duration of this period cannot be determined 
by any scriptural data alone. For its commence- 
ment and chronological details we have to resort to 
profane history. In reference to this point, the Sep- 
tuagint and the Hebrew occupy the same ground. 
For, as we have before intimated, all essential dif- 
ference between the two is confined to the first two 
periods, or the patriarchal ages, there being only a 
slight discrepancy afterward, viz., in the fourth 
period, the years of Eli or the statement in i Kings 
vi. I. Since, then, our object is to give the chro- 
nology of the Septuagint, we, without discussion, 
remark that the destruction of the temple by Neb- 
uchadnezzar has been fixed by means of Ptolemy's 
canon at about B. C. 586, by the ablest chronolo-. 



THE HUMAN RACE, 



41 



gers,* some varying two or three years on one side 
or the other of that date. Waiving the discussion 
of that point to another place, we assume that as 
the date of the destruction of the temple. 

The chronology of the Septuagint, presented in 
tabular form, stands thus (that of the Hebrew being 
added for convenience of comparison) : — 





THE SEPTUAGINT. 1 


HEBREW. 




Mai's Ed. 


Tischen. Ed. 








Yrs. 


B. C. 


Yrs. 


B. C. 


Yrs. 


B.C. 


I. Creation, 


2262 


5532 


2242 


5512 


1656 


4066 


2. Flood, 


II72 


3270 


I172 


3270 


292 


2410 


3. Birth of Abraham, . 


505 


2098 


505 


2098 


505 


2118 


4. Exodus, . 


580 


1593 


580 


1593 


600 


1613 


5. Founding of Temple, 


427 


IO13 


427 


1013 


427 


IO13 


6. Destruction of Tem- 














'pie, . . . 


586 


586 


586 


586 


586 


586 



The first column of figures in each system denotes 
the length of the periods, and the second, the date 



* The author of "The History of the World," Philip Smith, 
B. A., one of the principal contributors to Smith's Dictionary of 
Greek and Roman Biography, in his Note on Chronology, p. lo, 
says, " The epoch of the destruction of the temple is fixed by 
a concurrence of proofs from sacred and profane history, with 
only a variation of one, or, at the most, two y^ars, between B. C. 
588 and 586. Clinton's date is June, B. C. 587." This margin 
should be extended a little on each side of 586, as some, as Bede, 
have 589, and some as low as 583. 



42 



ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 



of the epochs beginning them. It should be re- 
marked, in regard to the Hebrew computation in 
the above table, that Hebraists generally make the 
second interval three hundred and fifty-two years, 
by regarding Abraham as the youngest son of 
Terah, and born when his father was one hundred 
and thirty years old, instead of seventy, and the 
fourth period, four hundred and eighty, from i 
Kings vi. i, instead of six hundred, making the 
time from the creation to Christ sixty years less 
than it is in our table, placing the creation at B. C. 
4006. The sum four thousand and four, as indicat- 
ing the date of the creation in our received chro- 
nology, is made up, in addition to the above modifi- 
cations, by shortening the fifth period. But our 
table presents what we regard as the correct He- 
brew chronology.* 



* Dates according to 


s^arious authors : - 


- 








i 

I 


45 




i 


1 


« 


Creation, . 


3983 


4004 


541 1 


5426 


5361 


Ab. 20,000 


Flood, 


2327 


2348 


?>^ss 


3170 


3099 


Ab. 10,000 


Birth of Abraham, 


1961 


X921 


2078 


2023 


2157 




Exodtis, 


1531 


1491 


1648 


1593 


1652 


1320 


Founding of Temple, 


1012 


1012 


1027 


IOI4 


lOII 


1004 


Destruction of Temple, 


589 


588 


586 


586 


586 


586 



THE HUMAN RACE. 43 

It should be further remarked, that most Sep- 
tuagintarian chronologers make the first period 
twenty-two hundred and fifty-six, out of deference 
to Josephus ; they likewise make the second period 
only ten hundred and seventy-two,* by putting the 
years of Nahor at seventy-nine instead of one hun- 
dred and seventy-nine ; or nine hundred and forty- 
two,! by leaving out the second Cainan with his gene- 
ration of one hundred and thirty years ; or ten hun- 
dred and two,t by giving Terah one hundred and 
thirty years to the birth of Abraham. We simply 
remark that our object is to present the chronology 
of the Septuagint according to the most approved 
texts. This we have done. We would state, how- 
ever, that we think this version should be corrected 
to make it harmonize with Josephus in the length of 
the first period, since, by giving Methuselah only 
one hundred and sixty-seven years before the birth 
of Lamech, we make him survive the flood fourteen 
years ; and the one hundred and eighty-eight years 
of Lamech should doubtless be corrected by the 
Hebrew and Josephus, and made one hundred and 
eighty-two ; we would likewise give to Eli forty 
instead of twenty years. 

* As Jackson. t As Eusebius. 

X As Hales. Hales, a Septuagintarian in chronology, gives 
Nahor seventy-nine, leaves out the second Cainan, and makes 
Terah one hundred and thirty at the birth of Abraham. 



44 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Thus it appears that the highest date of the crea- 
tion of man, according to the Septuagint, — and that 
is according to Mai's edition, — is B. C. 5532, and 
the lowest (arrived at by taking the lowest numbers 
found in any text, of Methuselah, viz., one hundred 
and sixty-seven, and Nahor, viz., seventy-nine, and 
the four hundred and forty of i Kings vi. i , for the 
fourth period) is two hundred and sixty years less, 
i. e., B. C. 5272. 

The difference between the Septuagint and the 
Hebrew, according to our computation, is fourteen 
hundred and sixty-six or fourteen hundred and 
forty-six. This difference, by taking other num- 
bers of the various readings, might be increased to 
sixteen hundred and twenty. It may be remarked, 
however, that the amount of difference, which is to 
be set down as the probable result of designed alter- 
ation in one or the other, is thirteen hundred years, 
or, if we include Cainan's generation in this class, 
fourteen hundred and thirty,* viz., six hundred in 
the period before, and seven hundred or eight hun- 
dred and thirty in the period after the flood, the lives 
of thirteen patriarchs before the birth of the son who 
succeeded being shortened or lengthened a century 

* We are inclined to the opinion, however, that the interpola- 
tion or omission of the second Cainan, whichever is adopted, is 
the result of mistake of copyists. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 45 

each, and the second Cainan being interpolated or 
left out. Other differences are probably the result 
of mistakes by copyists. 

These results, deducible from the sacred history 
alone, receive some remarkable confirmations from 
early heathen writers, which may properly be ex- 
hibited in this place. 

1. We have a fragment of a work on India, writ- 
ten by Megasthenes, a Greek historian contempo- 
raneous with Alexander the Great, about B. C. 323, 
in which he gives an account of the institutions and 
customs of the people of that country. He says, 
" The Hindus and the Jews are the only people who 
had a just conception of the creation of the world 
and the beginnings of things." And he adds, "The 
Hindus did not carry back their history and antiqui- 
ties above five thousand and forty-two [some manu- 
scripts read six thousand and forty-two] years and 
three months from Alexander's invasion of India," * 
— viz., 327 B. C. This would place the creation 
at B. C. 5369, differing less than two hundred years 
from the date now given. 

2. In an Arabic work, attributed to Abu-M^shar, 
in the conjunction of the planets, the author remarks 
that the Indians reckoned three thousand seven 
hundred and twenty-five years (Persian) and 

* Hales' Chronology, vol. i. p. 195. 



46 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

three hundred and forty-eight days between the 
deluge and the Hegira (A. D. 622), which would 
bring the date of the former at B. C. 3102. This is 
the date of the commencement of the celebrated 
Kali-Tug, an historico-astronomical epoch of the 
Hindus, which doubtless had its origin in that great 
event, the Flood, of Noah. 

3. Demetrius Phalereus, a Greek writer, born 
B. C. 345, is quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, 
another Greek author, as making the period before 
the flood to be two thousand two hundred and 
sixty-two years, and from thence to the birth of 
Abraham, one thousand and seventy-two years. 

4. Another heathen writer, named Eupolemus, 
said to have flourished about B. C. 160, who wrote 
several works on the history of the Jews, has a par- 
agraph to this effect : " That from Adam to the fifth 
year of Demetrius, and the twelfth of Ptolemy, king 
of Egypt, are five thousand one hundred and forty- 
nine years." Reference must here be made to 
Demetrius Soter, king of Syria, who began to reign 
about B. C. 163, and Ptolemy Physcon, who began 
B. C. 170. The fifth of the former and the twelfth 
of the latter concur in B. C. 158, which makes the 
date of the creation, according to this writer, to be 
B. C. 5307. The numbers given, both by him and 
Demetrius, were evidently originally derived from 



THE HUMAN RACE. 47 

the Mosaic records, and can not, therefore, be re- 
garded as independent testimony in support of those 
records. Their testimony, nevertheless, is valuable, 
as showing how the Jewish chronology had found 
its way into heathen writings many years before the 
Christian era.* 

* Demetrius and Eupolemus are both mentioned by Josephus 
(Cont. Apion, i. 23) as foreign writers who had " not greatly- 
missed the truth about our affairs; whose lesser mistakes ought, 
therefore, to be forgiven them, for it was not in their power to 
understand our writings with the utmost accuracy." 



48 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 

I. EGYPT. 
Source of our Knowledge of Egyptian Antiquities. — I. The 
Temples and Monuments. — Afford little Help in this Inquiry. 

— No monumental Date earlier than B. C. 2500. — II. Liter- 
ary Remains. — Art of Writing early known. — Number of 
Egyptian Books. — These contain no Chronology. — III. 
Greek Historians. — Their Study of Egyptian Antiquities. — 
Divided into two Classes. — Testimonies relating to Pre- 
historic Times. — Diogenes Laertius. — Diodorus Siculus. 

— Herodotus. — Pomponius Mela. — The "Old Chronicle." 

— Eusebius. — Julius Africanus. — Castor, — These Accounts 
not to be taken literally. — Discrepancies between them. — 
Months reckoned as Years. — Were ancient Annals forged.? 

— Supposed astronomical Evidence. — Story of the Zodiac of 
Dendera. — Of the wooden Tablets. — Historic Times. -^ 
Egyptian Chronology without Dates. — Manetho, his Histo- 
ry and Character. — His Lists of the Egyptian Dynasties. 

— These Lists examined. — I. Their Sources unknown. — II. 
Have been CQrrupted. — III. Intrinsic Evidence of their Un- 
trustworthiness. — IV. Contradicted by the " Old Chronicle." 

— By Eratosthenes. — By Josephus. — V. Not sustained by 
the Monuments. — Conclusion as to their Value. 

We propose to inquire, in the first place, of His- 
tory, whether she has any evidence to afford us of 



THE HUMAN RACE. 49 

the alleged remote antiquity of man on earth. And 
we will begin with what is confessedly one of the 
oldest of known nations — ancient Egypt. 

Our knowledge of the antiquities of Egypt is 
derived partly from its temples and monuments, 
partly from the papyrus rolls and other literary 
remains still extant, and partly from the writings 
of historians and scholars of other lands, who have 
transmitted to us the facts and traditions known in 
their day, but which have otherwise been lost. 

The first of these sources of information affords 
little help in determining the question before us. 
The work of deciphering the monumental inscrip- 
tions, since the discovery of the key to the system 
of hieroglyphics, as furnished by the Rosetta Stone, 
has been one of great interest, and some important 
results have been reached. Still it admits of a ques- 
tion whether, in the hands of those who but imper- 
fectly understand them, they have not introduced 
much confusion into Egyptian history. However that 
may be, the data they furnish are too recent to be 
of much weight in the inquiry under consideration. 
It is the general admission o'f Egyptologers, that no 
monumental record can be dated back anterior to 
about B. C. 2500. Says Mr. Poole,* " The earliest 
record which all Egyptologers are agreed to regard 

* Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Art. Egypt. 

4 



50 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

as affording a date, is of the fifteenth century before 
Christ, and no one has alleged any such record to 
be of any earlier time than the twenty-fourth century 
before Christ." 

The same thing is substantially true of the literary 
remains of ancient Egypt. It is generally admitted 
that the art of writing was known at a very early 
period, perhaps as early as the commencement of 
the empire under Menes, its first king. Clemens 
Alexandrinus mentions sacred Egyptian books to 
the number of forty-two ; others, eleven hundred ; 
others still, twenty thousand, and thirty-six thousand 
five hundred.* Some of these may still be extant 
in the numerous papyrus rolls now deposited in the 
museums of Egypt. It is, however, generally agreed 
that these books contain no history or chronology ; 
and certain it is that, if they do, neither has, as 
yet, been brought to light. Bunsen (vol. ii. p. i6) 
expressly says, " We possess no Egyptian historical 
work." 

For the history and chronology of ancient Egypt, 
then, we have to depend almost solely upon- writers 
of other nations, mostly of the Greeks. 

Diodorus Siculus (I. ii. 36) gives a list of the 
names of " illustrious Greeks," as he terms them, 
who had traveled in Egypt. He says that the 

* Bunsen, vol. i. p. 7. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 5 1 

priests of that country read in their annals the names 
of these men whom they have seen among them, 
beginning with the semi-fabulous name of Orpheus. 
He then mentions Homer, Lycurgus, and others, 
down to his own time, giving more than half a score 
in all. Plutarch furnishes a similar list. Thus it 
appears that the principal of the Greek historians, 
philosophers, and poets visited Egypt for the ex- 
press purpose of studying its customs, institutipns, 
and whatever else was worth}^ to be known. And 
we find, in corroboration of these statements, very 
many things in Grecian mythology and science 
credited to that people. More than a dozen Grecian 
and Roman writers speak of Egypt in their works. 
Some, as Herodotus and Diodorus, go into details 
respecting the history of the country and its laws ; 
others, as Plutarch, dwell more on matters pertain- 
ing to religion and the gods ; others, still, speak of 
its language, pyramids, and other monuments. 
Now, when we consider the eminently practical 
character of the Greek mind, what those writers 
said of Egypt is of great importance in our discus- 
sion, although we may often be sorely vexed at the 
meagerness of the information they furnish on par- 
ticular points, when they evidentl}^ had the means 
and the opportunity of giving us the very knowledge 
we seek. 



52 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

In exhibiting the accounts which these writers 
have left us, it will be convenient to divide them 
into two classes — those which relate to prehistoric 
times, and those which relate to historic times. The 
time of separation between these has usually been 
placed at the reign of Menes, the first mortal king, 
though there is some evidence that Menes himself 
is a mythological personage. 

I. The Prehistoric Times of Egypt. 

The following are among the testimonies of an- 
cient writers on this subject : — 

From Diogenes Laertius (Int. § 2). 

" The Egyptians say that Vulcan was the son of Nilus, 
and that he was the author of philosophy. . . . From 
his age to that of Alexander, king of the Macedonians, 
were forty-eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-three 
years, and, during this time, there were three hundred 
and seventy-three eclipses of the sun, and eight hundred 
and thirty-two eclipses of the moon." 

From Diodorus Siculus (I. i. § 14). 

" The priests of Egypt, summing up the time from the 
reign of Helius (the sun) to the passage of Alexandei 
into Asia, find it more than twenty-three thousand 
years." 



THE HUMAN RACE. 53 

From Herodotus (II. 43). 

" But there was a certain ancient god with the Egyp- 
tians, by name Hercules. Seventeen thousand years 
before the reign of Amasis, the twelve gods were, they 
affirm, produced from the eight, and, of these twelve, 
Hercules is one." 

From Po7nponhts Alela (Cory's Anc. Fragments, 
p. 163). 

" The Egyptians, according to their own accounts, are 
the most ancient of men, and they reckon, in their series 
of annals, three hundred and thirty kings, who reigned 
above thirteen thousand years." 

From, the " Old Chronicle.^^ * 
This venerable document is reported to us by George 
Syncellus, a Greek writer of the ninth century. It pro- 
fesses to give the duration of thirty dynasties of Egyptian 
kings, covering a period of thirty-six thousand five hun- 
dred and twenty-five years. The first fourteen of these 
belonged to prehistoric times, embracing thirty-four thou- 
sand two hundred and one years. According to this 
Chronicle, only the last sixteen of the thirty dynasties be- 
long to historic times, which are made to commence about 
B. C. 2043. 

From Eusebius, 
This distinguished historian and chronologer devotes 
a chapter in his " Chronicon" (book i. ch. 20) to Egyp- 

♦ See page 73. 



54 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

tian chronology, expressly mentioning Manetho * as his 
authority. He makes the reigns of the gods, from Vul- 
can (Hephaistus) to Bytis, to have been thirteen thousand 
nine hundred years, and those of demigods, manes, 
heroes, and other kings of the same age, eleven thousand 
years — in all, twenty-four thousand nine hundred years. 
He then gives an account of the so-called thirty-one 
dynasties, beginning with Menes, the first mortal king, 
who, according to the numbers mentioned, — if the dynas- 
ties are regarded as consecutive, — began his reign about 
B. C. 5500, thus carrying back the full antiquity of the 
Egyptian people to about 30,500 B. C. 

From yulius Africanus. 

This writer was a learned chronologer of the second 
century after Christ. He gives us a version of Manetho, 
which, so far as relates to the mythologic times of Egypt, 
differs, in essential particulars, from that of Eusebius. 
He states the reigns of the gods, beginning with Hephais- 
tus, — whose sway was nine thousand years, — to have 
been eleven thousand nine hundred and eighty-five years, 
and those of the demigods, heroes, and manes, to have 
been eight hundred and fifty-three years.f Then follow 

* The great differences that appear in the statements of the 
different writers who, in the matter of Egyptian history and 
chronology, have professed to take Manetho as authority, are an 
anomaly in literature. 

t There is some doubt how far the details of this account are 
to be ascribed to Africanus, and how far to later historians anc| 



THE HUMAN RACE. 55 

the thirty-one dynasties, more nearly agreeing with the 
account of Eusebius. What is worthy of note in this 
connection is, that these two writers agree in putting the 
reigns of the gods, demigods, and manes before the so- 
called thirty-one dynasties, while other accounts, as that 
of the "Old Chronicle" and Castor, include them within 
the latter. 

From, Castor, 

This was a heathen writer, who is believed to have 
flourished in the second century before Christ.* He also 
expressly mentions Manetho as his authority. Accord- 
ing to him, the duration of the reigns of the gods was 
fifteen hundred and fifty years ; then, of the demigods, 
heroes, and manes, twenty-one thousand years. Thus 
Egyptian prehistoric times, as measured by this writer, 
amount to but thirty-six hundred and fifty years, although 
the numbers he gives in the summing up do not agree 
with the details. The fragment of his work which has 
come down to us is, however, so corrupted that his state- 
ments are often self-contradictory. Like the preceding 

chronologers, as Panodorus, Anianus, and Syncellus. The 
statements of Sjncellus are not always definite, so that we can 
not determine whether he is giving his own language or that of 
another. There is scarcely room for doubt, however, that the 
numbers above given are, for the most part, correctly ascribed 
to Africanus. 

■* The chronological work of a Castor, supposed to be this 
author, is referred to by Apollodorus, who died about B. C. 140. 
— Smith's Diet. Gr. a?id Rom. Biog.^ art. Castor. 



56 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

authors, he makes Hephaistus, or Vulcan, the first of the 
gods, and Menes the first of the mortal kings. He enu- 
merates only seventeen dynasties." 

What, now, is the practical value of this testimony 
in determining the problem before us? How far 
does it go to prove the existence of man on earth, 
at a period antecedent to the date assigned to his 
creation in the Scriptures? 

That these accounts are not to be taken literally 
is evident upon the face of them. It would be an 
insult to the understanding of my readers to assure 
them that gods, i. e., superhuman beings, demi- 
gods (persons half divine and half human), and 
manes (which are the spirits or ghosts of the dead) , 
did, in fact, reign over men on the earth at any 
time, or during any period. Yet, strange as it 
may seem, there have been writers of eminence who 
have actually made these accounts the basis of their 
chronology, and taken them into their systems as 
having some substantial value. How true is the 
remark, that no persons manifest so much credulity 
in the acceptance of extravagant and impossible 
theories, as those who profess themselves incredu- 
lous of the statements of the Bible ! 

The worthlessness of these stories, as an element 
of chronology, is ^Iso shown by the discrepancies 



THE HUMAN RACE. 57 

between them. The duration of the reign of the 
gods, &c., is variously stated to be all the way 
between thirty-six hundred and fifty and forty-eight 
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three years. 
There can be little doubt that these historians faith- 
fully reported the accounts given them, either orally 
^or in the sacred books. How evident it is, then, 
that those original authorities were utterly untrust- 
worthy ! — either that the earlier Egyptian records 
were not understood in the times of Herodotus, 
Diodorus, and Manetho,* or that the work of Mane- 
tho himself has been so abridged and corrupted by 
epitomizers, through whose writings alone it ap- 
pears to have been known after the times of Jose- 
phus, that it is now of little or no value for purposes 
of accurate chronology. 

There is, however, a mode of estimating these 
long prehistoric periods which should be adverted 
to in this place. " We know," says Palmer (Egyp. 

* Dr. Samuel Birch, of the British Museum, in his translation 
of the " Book of the Dead," sajs, " The new exegetical researches 
into the hieratic papyri have contributed to throw additional 
light on many obscure passages ; but there are others, the mean- 
ing of which will probably long remain ambiguous — a circum- 
stance not to be wondered at when it is remembered that the 
correct or ancient reading was so to the Egyptians themselves 
at a very early period of their theology." — Additional Notes, 
P- 333- 



58 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Chron. vol. i. p. 30), "that under the Ptolemies 
and the Romans the idea existed that the vast 
periods of the Egyptians, of the Chronicle, and of 
Manetho in particular, had been swelled to their 
apparent bulk by counting, for the earlier spaces of 
time, months under the name of years." Herodotus 
and Plato, or Eudoxus, no less than later writers, 
had heard that the earliest Egyptian " years " were 
months of thirty days : " Ei db xai b cprfow 'Evdo^og 

aXTjdig, brt AiyinTiov top [jir^vQi, ^vcavrbv sxdlovv^ orjx div -^ T(bv 
noll^v zoirojv ipiavi(bv dcnuQidfirjaig s/ov Tt duv/uaaTov" * 

(Proclus. in Tim. p. 31, 1. 50.) Diodorus Siculus 
adds more particularly that, according to some, the 
long reigns of the earUer gods, who had above 1200 
years each, were composed oi months of thirty days, 
not real years ; and those of the later gods, who had 
over 300 years each, were composed oi seasons ^\ of 
four months each, the native Egyptian year being 
divided into three seasons, of spring, summer, and 
winter, not four, like the Greek. On this ground, 
Eusebius reduced the w^hole period of the gods, 
demigods, and manes, to 2,206 years, which is an 
affroocimation to the s^ace from the creation to the 
deluge^ according to the Se^tuagint chronology, 

* "And if Eudoxus reports correctly, that the Egyptians call 
a month a year, the reckoning of those many years would not 
contain anything wonderful." f u^ai. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 59 

The "Old Chronicle" allots 34,201 years to the 
ante-human, reigns, which, reduced upon the same 
principle, amounts to 2765 solar years. Thus in- 
terpreted, we obtain a clew to the actual duration 
of the mythological period of the ancient Egyptians, 
viz., that there had been a space of between two 
and three thousand years from the creation to the 
commencement of the Egyptian monarchy. 

This, certainly, is a possible explanation of the 
matter. I know, indeed, that Bunsen mentions it 
with a sneer, and dismisses it as not entitled to a 
moment's thought. He regards it as a mere expe- 
dient of Christian chronographers to bring the chro- 
nology of Egypt into harmony with that of the Jew- 
ish Scriptures. Wilkinson likewise says that this 
ground is untenable. But the explanation was not 
first made by Christian writers. When Herodotus, 
Diodorus, and others spoke of it as an ancient 
method of reckoning time, they doubtless had evi- 
dence of the fact, which may now be lost; and they 
manifestly give it as a fact, and not as a mere 
opinion of their own. 

Such a mode of reckoning time would, at first, be 
the most natural and easy. It is, in fact, that of 
almost all uncultivated nations to this da}-. The 
revolutions of the moon are more obvious and defi- 
nite than those of the earth, the dii:rnal excepted, 



6o ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

and the supposition is more than plausible, that, in 
the earliest ages, the lunar measure of time would 
prevail. 

Besides, if this mode of explaining the immense 
periods of Egyptian chronology be rejected, what is 
the true one? Let those who sneer at this tell us 
what those periods do mean. Do those thirteen 
thousand nine hundred years of the reign of the 
gods signify a real condition of men and things on 
earth ? Did the twelve hundred and fifty-five years' 
sway of the demigods — beings whose fathers were 
gods and mothers women, or vice versa — cover 
an actual state of affairs in this world? So with the 
fifty-eight hundred and thirteen years attributed 
to the demigods and manes. What is the practi- 
cal meaning of these? Perhaps our friends the 
"spiritualists" can explain them. I cannot. Per- 
haps they may find in these old Egyptian legends 
evidence of the actual participation of departed 
spirits in the affairs of men. Be it so. But a sober 
student of history and chronology, when confronted 
with myths like these, cannot help asking some 
questions in regard to them which are not so easily 
disposed of. And the only rational conclusion he 
can reach is, that as to determining the actual exist- 
ence of man on earth, unless upon the supposition 
that they involve other than the usual modes of 
reckoning, they are utterl}^ worthless. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 6l 

It has been sometimes said that ancient nations 
have forged the large periods of their early annals 
for the express purpose of gratifyirrg their pride of a 
high antiquity. Biit I doubt the assertion. Such a 
motive v^ould imply an appreciation of the value of 
histor}^ in the true sense of the term. And when 
such an appreciation is reached by any people, it is 
too late to falsify it; or, if falsification were at- 
tempted, it could not be perpetuated. Still, if any 
one should maintain that, in remote prehistoric 
times, some bard or story-teller invented these large 
Egyptian numbers, and gave them currency before 
the true idea and value of history had been attained, 
I should have no controversy with him. But I have 
a controversy with those who accept these numbers 
as any part of authenticated history, and weave 
them into systems of chronology claiming our con- 
fidence or respect. 

Before leaving the prehistoric times of Egypt, I 
should allude to certain evidence supposed to be 
derived from astronomical inscriptions upon the tem- 
ples corrobor^ative of the alleged extreme antiquity 
of that people. Among these was the famous Zodiac 
of Denderah, which attracted so much attention a 
few years ago.* The following narrative concern- 

. * Though the pretensions based upon this zodiac are now so 
completely exploded, yet it is still adduced by some as proving a 



62 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

ing it is from the pen of a learned writer, who had 
a personal knowledge of some of the things of which 
he speaks, and was familiar with the whole sub- 
ject : — 

" Some time about the year 179S5 General Bonaparte, 
tvith his host of French soldiery and a number of literary 
men, entered the small town of Denderah, in Central 
Egypt, and found there a large and small temple, in a 
good state of preservation, both of which were decorated 
with images of deities and hieroglyphics. The literary 
men copied the drawings as well as their time would per- 
mit, but they secured the whole ceiling of the smaller, flat 
temple, by cutting out the stone slab by means of a saw. 
They were also fortunate enough in getting the old, 
black, and smoky stone — which, by the way, had the 
length and breadth of the ceiling of a middle-sized room 
— safe to Paris. Arrived here, the literati went to work 
in deciphering the inscriptions and figures of both tem- 
ples. And what did they make of them ? 

" Why, they thought; from the inscriptions, that both 
temples must be at least 17^000 years old, and tried to 
prove this by their astronomical calculations — in short, 
made it mathematically sure. Volume after volume was 
then published on this subject. But in this case, as in 
many others, the reckoning had been made without their 

high date for the human occupancy of the Nile valley. Since 
these pages were written, a gentleman urged it to prove to me 
the incorrectness of the Mosaic chronology. For this reason I 
refer to it in this place. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 63 

host, for men of letters could not agree altogether. Some 
considered the stone older, and others of less age ; but all 
united on one point, that both temples at Denderah must 
have stood before the great deluge, and even the creation. 
A certain professor of the University of Breslau edited, 
for instance, a pamphlet, entitled ' Invincible Proof that 
our Earth is at least ten times older than taught by the 
Bible.' More than fifty publications, of a similar purport, 
have treated of the temples of Denderah. Besides these, 
a host of newspaper writers trumpeted the great discovery 
of the nineteenth century,- in innumerable sheets and 
periodicals all over Europe. 

" The stone of Denderah was kept, at this time, in the 
National Library at Paris, and was visited by hundreds 
of thousands of the curious, all anxious to see the antedi- 
luvian monument. But King Charles X. was compelled, 
at last, to place it in a dark chamber, because the crowd 
became too large and unruly. This naturally caused a 
great deal of grumbling, because the king and priesthood 
had combined, as they said, to keep the people from 
becoming enlightened. 

" This was a time of woe for a srnall band of Chris- 
tians,, and of great rejoicing for the infidels of all coun- 
tries. ' You credulous fools,' railed they, ' don't you see 
how you have been imposed upon by the wily priesthood, 
with the chronology of your " Word of God " ? There was 
never a deluge, nor a creation, at least not at the period 
stated by the Bible. Now you can see that the Old and 
New Testaments contain, from beginning to end, a series 



64 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

of lies ! ' Nobody was able, in those times, to gainsay so 
n^any books of learning, and many poor Christians were 
led astray." 

The author then proceeds to explain the method 
by which so great an antiquity was deduced from 
the inscription. They found certain marks, from 
which they inferred that the vernal equinox, at the 
time the temple was erected, was between the signs 
Cancer and Leo, of the zodiac, and, as the equi- 
noxes recede at the rate of about fifty seconds a year, 
or one degree in seventy-two years, a simple calcu- 
lation showed that it must have been at the point 
supposed not less than 17,000 years ago. Hence 
the date of the temple, and hence, too, the demon- 
stration that the Bible was false ! But alas for pre- 
tensions so confident ! When Champollion, having 
discovered the mode of deciphering the hiero- 
glyphics, examined this famous zodiac, he read 
upon it the name and titles of Augustus CcBsar, 
showing that its origin was no more ancient than 
the Christian era. And this conclusion has been 
abundantly confirmed by others. Thus Letronne,* 
having recited some of the principal facts, particu- 
larly in relation to a zodiac found in a mummy-case, 
— precisely like that at Denderah, — on which was 

* Recueil des Inscriptions, Grecques et Latines, de I'Egypt. 
Paris, 1842. Introd. p. 20. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 65 

traced a Greek inscription, giving the name of the 
deceased, and date of his death, which was the nine- 
teenth year of Trajan, remarks, — 

" Thus it was demonstrated that all the zodiacal repre- 
sentations which existed in Egypt are found only upon 
monuments of the Greek and Roman periods, and that 
none of those of Pharaonic times — temples, tombs, or 
mummies — offer the least trace of them ; from which re- 
sults the evident proof that the zodiac, so far from having 
originated in Egypt, as was generally believed, after the 
opinion of Dupuis, was a stranger in that country till 
after it had passed through the hands of the Greeks." 

The same writer adds, in another work,* that, in 
his opinion, all the six Egyptian zodiacs which have 
been discovered were posterior to the reign of 
Tiberius, and were "executed in the space of less 
than one hundred years — between 57 and 150 of 
our era." 

Similar results hav6 been derived from an exam- 
ination of four wooden tablets brought from Egypt 
by Rev. Henry Stobart in 1854. f These measured 
each four by two and a half inches, and were 
covered on both sides with quintuple columns of 
demotic characters, which proved to be a series of 

* Sur rOrigine Grecque des zodiaques pretendus Egyptiennes. 
Paris, 1837. 

t Dr. J. P. Thompson, in Bib. Sacra, vol. xiv. pp. 651-654. 

5 



66 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

observations upon the places of the five planets in 
the signs of the zodiac. The reading of these 
tablets by the eminent Egyptologists Brugsch and 
Lepsius affords a curious example of the different 
conclusions reached by the masters of Egyptian 
interpretation. In regard to four out of the five 
planets, the two are in entire disagreement, that of 
Mars alone being the same in both readings. 

M. Brugsch submitted a careful translation of these 
tablets to some of the leading astronomers of Eu- 
rope, and received a reply from M. Biot, of Paris," 
transmitting the calculations of Mr. Ellis, of the 
Greenwich Observatory, to the effect that " these 
are, without doubt, records of the places of the 
planets. Those which he has restored Q^i&ndjrom 
the year 105 to the year U/^ of our era. This last 
point corresponds with the close of the reign of Tra-. 
jan in Egypt." Mr. Biot adds, " That these nota- 
tions of planetary places were made after actual 
observations seems to me not at all probable. In 
fact, for this there must have been, in the time of 
Trajan, at Thebes or Memphis, a grand observa- 
tory, manned by accomplished observers, well ap- 
pointed with instruments, and making constant note 
of the movements of the planets ; all things of which 
there is no trace in Egypt at that epoch except at 
Alexandria, and there only to a limited extent. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 67 

I therefore incline to regard these tablets as having 
been the note-book {calefin) or the year-book of a 
Roman or Greek astrologer living in Egypt, w^ho 
thus inscribed for his own use the places of the 
planets calculated in advance, according to the 
Greek astronomy, merely transforming the dates 
of the vague year into corresponding dates of the 
fixed year." * 

Enough has now been said to show the fallacy of 
any conclusion respecting the antiquity of our race, 
drawn from the mythologic period of Egyptian 
chronolgy. We come next to consider, — 

II. The Historic Times of Egypt. 

It is almost universally admitted that historic 
times in Egypt began with Menes, although, for 
myself, I cannot, as heretofore remarked, but re- 
gard him more as a mythological than an historical 
personage. But, conceding for the present the 
common view, that he was the founder of the Egyp- 
tian empire, the inquiry before us is. When did he 
live? 

And here it is important to remark that Egyptian 
chronology has no dates. There was no common 
era, like that of the Greek olympiads, or of the 
founding of Rome, or our own Christian era, to 

♦ Ibiden^. 



68 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

which events were referred, and the time of their 
occurrence noted. Sometimes the year of the reign- 
ing monarch is mentioned, but neither this, nor the 
date of the dynasty of which this was a part, was 
recorded. The only mode, then, in which the foun- 
dation of the empire may be even approximately 
ascertained, is by summing up the whole number 
of reigns, and the duration of each, as given us in 
the lists of Manetho. The importance of these 
lists, as lying at the very foundation of Egyptian 
chronology, requires some particular notice, both 
of them and their author. 

Manetho was a high priest of the temple of Isis at 
Sebennytus, a town in Lower Egypt, in the time of 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B. C. 276. He wrote 
a history of Egypt, in three books, which he pro- 
fessed to have derived from sacred writings pre- 
served in the temples, which had been handed down 
from ancient times. His original work is now lost, 
but portions of it were incorporated by Julius Afri- 
canus, in a work on chronology, written in the third 
century, and .transmitted to us in another work on 
the same subject by George Syncellus,* a writer at 
Constantinople, of the ninth century. Another ver- 
sion of Manetho is found in the writings of Euse- 
bius, the church historian, of which some fragments 

* See Appendix, D. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 



69 



are also given by Syncellus, and a more perfect 
copy, in Armenian, found at Constantinople, and 
published in 1818. Some suppose that Eusebius 
copied from Africanus, but the differences between 
them make this improbable. It is more likely that 
both of them copied from epitomes of Manetho's 
work, and that these differences existed in those 
epitomes themselves. The charge of arbitrarily 
altering the numbers, etc., of his authorities, so often 
made against Eusebius, is not well sustained, at 
least to the extent alleged by Bunsen and some 
others. 

The following is a summary of the dynasties, with 
the number of reigns in each, and their duration, as 
given by Manetho in the two versions above de- 
scribed.* Those marked * in the list of Eusebius 
are transcribed from Africanus : — 





According to 








According to 








Afkicanus. 


No. of 






Eusebius. 


No. of 




Dyn. 


Name. 


Kings. 


Years 


Dyn. 
I. 


Name. 


Kings. 
8 


Years. 


I. 


Thinite, 


8 


253 


Thinite, 


*253 


II. 


Thinitfe, 


9 


302 


II. 


Thinite,_ 


9 


297 


III. 


Memphite, 


9 


214 


III. 


Memphite, 


8 


197 


IV. 


Memphite, 


8 


274 


IV. 


Mempliite, 


17 


448 


V. 


Elephantine 


9 


248 


V. 


Elephantine, 


31 


*24S 


VI. 


Mempliite, 


6 


203 


VI. 


Memphite,* 


*6 


203 


vir. 


Mcmi^hite, 


70 


7ody's 


VII. 


Memphite, 


5 


75 


vrii. 


Memphite, 


27 


146 


VIII. 


Memi^hite, 


9 


100 


IX. 


Heracleopolite, 


19 


409 


IX. 


Heracleopolite, 


4 


100 


X. 


Heracleopolite, 


19 


185 


X. 


Heracleopolite, 


19 


185 


XI. 


Diospolite, 


16 


43 


XI. 


Diospolite, 


16 


• 43 


XII. 


DlospoHte, 


7 


160 


XII. 


Diospolite, 


7 


245 


XIII. 


Diospolite, 


60 


453 


XIII. 


Diospolite, 


60 


453 



* See Appendix, E. 



70 



ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 





According to 








According to 




• 




Africanus. 


No. of 






EUSEBIUS. 


No. of 




Dyn. 


Name. 


Kings. 


Years. 


Dyn. ■ 


Name. 


Kings. 


Years. 


XIV. 


Xoite, 


76 


184 


XIV. 


Xoite, 


It 


484 


XV. 


Shepherds, 


6 


284 


XV. 


Diospolite, 


250 


XVI. 


Shepherds, . 


32 


518 


XVI. 


Theban, 


5 


190 


XVII. 


Shepherds and 
















■ Diospolites, 


86 


151 


XVII. 


Shepherds, 


4 


103 


XVIII. 


Diospolite, 


16 


263 


XVIII. 


DiospoHte, 


14 


348 


XIX. 


DiospoHte, 


7 


209 


XIX. 


Diospolite, 


5 


194 


XX. 


Diospolite. * 


12 


135 


XX. 


Diospolite, 


12 


172 


XXI. 


Tanite, 


7 


130 


XXI. 


Tanite, 


7 


130 


XXII. 


Bubastite, 


9 


120 


XXII. 


Bubastite, 


3 


49 


XXIII. 


Tanite, 


4 


89 


XXIII. 


Tanite, 


3 


44 


XXIV. 


Saite, 




44 


XXIV. 


Saite, 


I 


44 


XXV. 


Ethiopian, 


3 


40 


XXV. 


Ethiopian, 


3 


40 


XXVI. 


Saite, 




150 


XXVI. 


Saite, 


9 


167 


XXVII. 


Persian, 


8 


124 


XXVII. 


Persian, 


8 


124 


XXVIII. 


Saite, 


I 


6 


XXVIII. 


Saite, 


I 


6 


XXIX. 


Mendesian, 


4 


20 


XXIX. 


Mendesian, 


5 


21 


XXX. 


Sebennyte, 


3 


38 


XXX. 


Sebennyte, 


3 


20 


XXXI. 


Persian, 


3 


9 


XXXI. 


Persian, 


3 


16 




554 


5,404 . 


367 


5249 



Without noticing now the discrepancies between 
these lists, and assuming, as is generally done, that 
that given by Africanus is to be preferred, we have 
only to ascertain the date of their termination at the 
close of the XXXIst dynasty, and add to this the 
whole number of years covered by them to arrive at 
the age of Menes. The XXXIst dynasty ended 
with the death of Nectanebus, fifteen years before 
the accession of Alexander of Macedon, B. C. 339.* 
The whole duration of the monarchy being 5404 
years, we arrive at the conclusion that Menes began 
to reign 5743 years before the Christian era, which 
was at least sixty-two years before the creation, 
according to the Septuagint chronology. This date 

* Smith's Diet. Gr. and Rom. Geog., art. j^gyptus. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 7 1 

is otherwise fixed, owing to different readings of the 
lists, by Rodier at B. C. 5853, by Bocickh at B. C. 
5702, by Lenormant at B. C. 5004, by Brugsch at 
B. C. 4555, etc. 

It now devolves upon us to inquire into the trust- 
worthiness of this conclusion, and of the data from 
which it is derived. 

1. We know nothing as to the truthfulness of the 
original sources from w^hich Manetho professed to 
derive his account. His authority was the priests, 
and the sacred books under their care. But we 
know from Herodotus what incredible stories the 
priests were wont to relate to inquisitive travel- 
ers, — tales of mingled fact and fable too gross 
even for those who were in quest of the marvelous 
and strange to believe. We know not whence the 
priests derived their information in the first place, 
how truthful they were in recording and transmitting 
it, or with what fidelity and accuracy Manetho him- 
self transcribed it. The very first elements are 
wanting of a basis for an intelligent belief of the 
document. 

2. Even if the account were originally true, it 
has evidently become so corrupt that it is now 
utterly impossible to determine what its genuine 
contents were. The copies we have, all come to 
us at second or third hand, and present the greatest 



72 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

discrepancies with each other. Bunsen exhibits a 
tabular view of these in the three leading versions : 
first, of Africanus ; second, of Eusebius, as quoted by 
Syncellus ; and third, of Eusebius, as translated from 
the Armenian. * These three contain about one hun- 
dred numbers, in less than twenty of which is there 
entire harmony in all the versions. Two of the 
three harmonize in some eight or ten more. The 
number of reigns varies from 366 — some say from 
288 — to 554 ; their aggregate duration from 4922 
to 5404 years. Granting, then, that what Manetho 
actually wrote is to be received, the question still 
remains undecided. What did he write? In the 
present multiplicity of versions and of readings, 
nobody can tell. Sober criticism can not employ 
them to fix a single date. 

3. The lists themselves bear internal evidence 
of their untrustworthiness. They relate the reigns 
of the gods, and demigods, and ghosts as posi- 
tively, and with the same exact report of the years 
embraced in them, as in the case of the human 
monarchs who succeeded them. Many whole dy- 
nasties, covering, together, nearly 2000 years, show 
not the name of a single king. It gravely records 
^ that the Nile flowed with honey for eleven days, 
that one dynasty of seventy kings "reigned just 
seventy days, and that, under one reign, a lamb 



THE HUMAN RACE. 73 

spoke — stories evidently no better than old wives' 
fables. It is, besides, self-contradictory. The sum 
of the years assigned to the several kings of a 
dynasty often differs from the alleged duration of 
the dynasty itself, and the aggregate duration of 
all the dynasties jt expressly declares was only 
3555 years, which is 1849 less than the footing 
of the details.* A document exhibiting within 
itself such evidences of untruthfulness, is utterly 
unworthy of confidence. Only .the most unbounded 
credulity can give to it any weight of authority. 

4. The statements of Manetho are abundantly 
contradicted and refuted by other authority of far 
greater reliability than they. 

(a.) The first is that of the Old Chronicle^ so 
called. Syncellus, who transmitted to us the lists of 
Manetho, as above related (p. 6^'), states as follows 
(PP- 51 » 52) : "There is extant among the Egyp- 
tians a certain Old Chronicle^ the source, as I 
suppose, which led Manetho astray, — kl ol xal Tdv 
Mavedib nenluvr^udai voiuit,(o^ — exhibiting thirty dynas- 
ties, and again one hundred and thirteen generations, 
with an infinite space of time, — not the same, either, 
as that of Manetho, — viz., three myriads six thou- 
sand five hundred and twenty-five years, first of the 
^rit£e, secondly of the Mestrasans, and thirdly of 

* See page 70. 



74 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Egyptians."* Of these 36,525 years, it proceeds 
to say the first fifteen dynasties are of gods (^ritse) 
and demigods (Mestragans) , who together reigned 
34,644 years, leaving the human period to begin with 
the XVIth dynasty, and extending only 1881 years. 
This, Syncellus says, " is accounted the oldest 

Egyptian document," ixvtt] {ihv -fi naXaiOTsga vofii'Qofievr) 

Aiyvmibiv avyygacpri^ — i. e., probably the oldest written 
in Greek. It was, according to this author, one of 
the documents consulted by Manetho in making up 
his lists, in regard to which he made the mistake of 
reckoning all the dynasties, instead of the last fifteen 
only, as mortal kings, and carrying up the begin- 
ning of the monarchy 3523 years above the date at 
which it was set by the Chronicle — a very grave 
mistake truly, and rendering the list, as usually 
read, entirely worthless. According to this venera- 
ble document, therefore, the true date of Menes is 
B. C. 2220. 

(3.) Nearly contemporary with Manetho was the 
distinguished scholar, historian, and critic Eratos^ 
thenes, who wrote an important work on the history 
of Egypt, of which portions are preserved to us in 
the writings of Apollodorus, an equally eminent 
scholar of the succeeding century. Bunsen (vol. i. 
pp. 119-121) styles Eratosthenes "the father of 
chronology and geography," and says, — 

* See Appendix, F. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 75 

" Everything relative to Egypt, emanating from a man 
of such rare talent and extensive learning, is deserving of 
the highest respect. Besides which, we must also reflect 
that for the history of Egypt, above that of all other coun- 
tries, every attainable material v^as at his disposal. Born 
in the 126th Olympiad, about B. C. 276, in the early part, 
therefore, of the reign of Philadelphus, he succeeded, 
probably under Evergetes, to the honorable post of 
director of the Alexandrian Library, which he filled to 
the time of his death, in his eightieth or eighty-second 
year. The very researches to which our attention is here 
directed, were undertaken by the command of the king, 
consequently with every advantage that royal patronage 
could procure for the investigation from the Egyptian 
priests." 

Of Apollodorus, also, Bunsen speaks in terms 
scarcely less eulogistic. The testimony of these 
eminent scholars is reported to us by Syncellus, as 
follows : — 

" The chronographer Apollodorus has written of an- 
other kingdom (Egyptian) of thirty-eight Theban kings, 
so called, amounting to 1076 years, which began at the 
2900th, and ended in the 3975th (3976th) year of Jihe 
world, the knowledge of which he says Eratosthenes 
derived from Egyptian records and lists of names, and by 
royal command translated into Greek, thus." Then, 
after reciting the names, he adds, " The dominion 
{<^(JX^) of the thirty-eight kings, called, in Egypt, Theban, 
whose names Eratosthenes received from the sacred 



76 ANTiqyiTY and unity of 

scribes in Diospolis, and translated from Egyptian into 
Greek, ended here, having begun at the 2900th year of 
the world, — 1 24 years after the confusion of tongues, — 
and terminating at this 3975th (3976th) year of the 
world. But the names of the fifty-three other Theban 
kings after these, I think it needless to give here, since 
they are nothing to my purpose, as, indeed, is true of 
those already given." 

According to this eminent authorit}^ therefore, 
the entire Egyptian monarchy extended through 
only ninety-one reigns, instead of the several hun- 
dred claimed for it by Manetho. It is true that 
Bunsen denies that the fifty-three unnamed kings 
reached down to the close of the empire, and in- 
sists that they belong to what he calls the " Middle 
Kingdom," extending from the Xllth to the XVlIIth 
dynasty. In this, however, he stands alone, so far 
as I am aware. He concedes, however, that the 
thirty-eight reigns cover the first twelve dynasties ; 
and there is decisive evidence from the monuments, 
as we shall presently see, that the XVIIIth dynasty 
immediately succeeded the Xllth, the intermediate 
ones either not existing at all, or being scattered in 
fragments, contemporaneous with those preceding or 
following. In this view the so-called Middle King- 
dom wholly disappears. The fifty-three unnamed 
kings of Eratosthenes, then, probably covered the 



THE HUMAN RACE. 77 

remainder of the monarchy from the beginning of 
the XVIIIth dynasty, which may be the reason why 
Syncellus deemed it unnecessary to name them, as 
they agreed substantially with Manetho's lists (in 
Eusebius). At any rate, the fact is admitted by 
Lepsius,* one of the greatest Egyptologers, and 
can not well be disputed. 

This period, according to Africanus, was 1377 
years, which, added to the 1076 of the preceding 
thirty-eight reigns, makes the entire duration of the 
monarchy 2453 years, and, dating back from Alex- 
ander, B. C. 340, carries the age of Menes to B. C. 
2793, or 362 years after the flood, which sufficiently 
harmonizes with the Scripture chronology, f 

(c) Our next authority on the point before us is 
yosepkus, the eminent Jewish historian, who, for the 
elegance and vigor of his style, has been named the 
Greek Livy. His work, entitled " Against Apion," 
is .a vindication of the antiquity of his nation from 

* He points out the important fact that, according to Syncel- 
lus, there were just fifty-three kings from Amosis I., who ex- 
pelled the Shepherds, to Amosis II., the contemporary of Cam- 
byses. 

t Bunsen himself places the beginning of the XVIIIth dynasty 
at B. C. 1633, which all admit to be near the truth. Thus, in- 
stead of carrying up the era of Menes, as he does, to B. C. 3623, 
or 3059, we bring it down by the list of Eratosthenes to 
(1633 + 1076) B. C. 2709. See Appendix, G. 



78 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the charge that it had not been mentioned by Greek 
historians. In this work he refers to Manetho by 
name, and gives, professedly verbatim, Tong ex- 
tracts from him.* In comparing these with what 
we have of that author, we find very little resem- 
blance between them. Of the narrative portion cited 
by Josephus there is absolutely nothing. His list 
of kings, twenty-five in all, begins with the XVth 
dynast}'^ of Africanus, and ends with the early part 
of the XXth — a period to which Manetho Assigns 
ninety-eight kings. In Eusebius it begins with the 
XVIIth dynasty, and includes a period of but nine- 
teen kings. The whole duration of these reigns in 
Josephus is 492 years, in Africanus 12 16, in Euse- 
bius 451. Nothing more, surely, is needed to show 
how utterly unworthy of confidence are the lists of 
Manetho. There is no reason to believe that Jose- 
phus did not give, literally, his extracts, as he pro- 
fessed to do, or that his works, which have been 
otherwise so well preserved, have been corrupted. 
He evidently had what he regarded as the original 
work before him. We see not how to avoid the 
conclusion, that Africanus and Eusebius, or Syn- 
cellus, who reported them, used some abridgment 
or epitome made by some other person, either a 
bungling transcriber, a willful falsifier, or an impose 

* See Appendix, H. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 79 

tor, who put forth his own work under the stolen 
name of Manetho. 

(d.) The lists before us are not sustained by the 
evidence furnished by the monuments. We have 
no space to exhibit this fact in detail, and must be 
content with some general statements. The first is, 
that but a small portion of the names given by Ma- 
netho can be identified. Of the 554 in Africanus, 
or 367 in Eusebius, occurring in the first seventeen 
dynasties, Bunsen, with his utmost ingenuity, does 
not pretend to have identified more than no, Lep- 
sius about as many, Poole only 76, etc. No trace 
whatever is found of dynasties VII., VIII., IX., 
X., XIII., XIV., XV. Euseb., XVI., XVII. Afric. 
A period of Egyptian history, midway, in its splen- 
did career of art and arms, as long as the interval 
from Alfred the Great to Victoria, has left not a sin- 
gle fact or monument, nor even a grave, to attest its 
existence. Even Bunsen admits that it is " improb- 
able and unexampled that a foreign people (the so- 
called "Shepherds") should maintain themselves in 
Egypt for nine, or even five centuries, and have 
lived so like barbarians that not a single monument 
of theirs can be pointed out." "But this," adds 
Canon Trevor,* "is far from stating the entire mar- 
vel, Not only is no Hyksos monument remaining, 

* Ancient Egypt, p. 262. 



8o ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

but none belonging to the native princes, their tribu- 
taries. Not *one pyramid, obelisk, temple, palace, 
or tomb, nor the fragment of one, can be found for 
the whole period. Not that Egyptian art had as 
yet no existence, for the works of the IVth and 
Xllth dynasties attest its progress up to the time in 
question. Not that it was then suddenly and perma- 
nently quenched under the inroad of the barbarians, 
for Bunsen himself observes that, * at the end of this 
period, which is longer, perhaps, than the duration 
of the historical life of most modern people, the old 
Egyptian empire comes forth again in renovated 
youth, and in fact, as the monuments prove, with 
its national peculiarities,' its religion, its language, 
its writing, its art, in precisely the same condition 
as if no interruption had occurred, or, at most, noth- 
ing beyond the temporary inroad of some Bedouin 
robbers ! ' " Nay, more ; the tablet of Abydos clearly 
shows that such a period never existed. The es- 
cutcheon or cartouche, bearing the name and titles of 
Amosis, the first sovereign of the XVIIIth dynasty, 
stands there immediately after that of Ammenemes, 
the last of the Xllth. Not a single monument re- 
mains which can positively be assigned a date ear- 
lier than Sesonchosis, or Sheshonk, of the XXIId 
dynasty — -the Shishak of the Scriptures, who was 
contemporary with 'Rehoboam, about B. C. 972. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 8 1 

Doubtless the pyramids and many other structures 
are much older, but they bear no independent data 
of their own by which their real age can be deter- 
mined, much less that carry us back within 500 
years of the flood. 

But, while these lists of Manetho are thus, by 
numerous proofs, shown to be utterly unreliable, as 
establishing a positive chronology of Egypt, we do 
not think it necessary, on the other hand, to discard 
them altogether. The truth seems to be that, origi- 
nally, they were a collection of names of sovereigns, 
handed down by tradition, with such exaggerations 
and additions as would naturally be made in the 
progress of time, who were believed to have reigned 
somewhere and at some time in that country. That 
portion which is earlier than the XVIIIth dynasty 
may be related to true history, much as the names 
transmitted from the semi-fabulous periods of Eng- 
land, the Briton, Welsh, and Saxon chieftains, who 
for a thousand years before the Norman conquest 
exercised a sway more or less extensive in that 
island, are related to the authentic records of later 
times. But what historian would gravely undertake, 
by grouping these *names into " dynasties," and 
counting up their number, and the alleged years of 
their reign, to arrive at the foundation of monarchy 
in England, or the exact date at which its first in- 
habitants came thither ! 



82 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

There is another consideration of much impor- 
tance in this connection. Even if we concede that 
the persons embraced in the lists really existed and 
reigned in Egypt, it does not follow that their reigns 
were all 'consecutive. The contrary supposition 
seems every way probable. " Egypt," says Osborn 
(Mon. Hist. vol. i. p. 183), "on its first settlement, 
was divided into nomes or provinces. The boun- 
daries of these nomes, and the customs and usages 
of each of them, were component parts of the com- 
mon law of Egypt at all periods of its history. 
What, therefore, is more probable, — we had almost 
said more certain, — than that, in the first place, 
the founder of each new city would be • accounted 
the king of it, and of the nome or district that sur- 
rounded it? This was the case on the settlement of 
all other countries in the ancient world,* and that 
Egypt would not depart from this universal rule is 
the highest of all conceivable probabilities." It has 
been claimed, however, that Manetho has made due 
allowance for this state of things, and excluded from 
his list all merely contemporary reigns. Says M. 
Mariette, " It would certainly be contrary to estab- 
lished facts to pretend that, from the days of Menes 
to the Greek conquest, Egypt always formed one 
united kingdom, and it is possible that unexpected 

* Gen. chaps. 10, 14, 36, etc. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 8^ 

discoveries may one day prove that throughout 
nearly the whole duration of this vast empire, there 
were even more collateral dynasties than the parti- 
sans of that system now contend for. But every- 
thing shows us that the work of elimination has 
been already performed on the lists of Manetho, in 
the state in which they have reached us. If, in 
fact, these lists contained the collateral dynasties, 
we should find in them, either before or after the 
XXIst, the dynasty of high priests who reigned at 
Thebes, while the XXIst occupied Tanis. In the 
same way we should have to count, either before or 
after the XXIIId, the seven or eight independent 
kings who were contemporary with it, and who, if 
Manetho had not rejected them, would have added 
as many successive royal families to the lists of the 
Egyptian priest, the dodecarchy for one, at least, 
betweeii the XXVth and XXVIth dynasties, and, 
finally, the Theban kings, rivals of the Shepherds, 
would have taken rank before or after the XVIIth. 
There were, therefore, incontestably contemporane- 
ous dynasties in Egypt ; but Manetho has thrown 
them out, and admitted those only whom he re- 
garded as legitimate, and his lists contain no others. 
If it were not so, it would not be thirty-one dynas- 
ties that we should have to reckon in the list of 
royal families .previous to Alexander, but probably 
nearer sixty." 



84 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

We submit that this reasoning is not conclusive. 
If the unsettled state of the monarchy, during its 
long existence, was such as to make necessary the 
cutting down of its royal annals one half, — from sixty 
to thirty-one dynasties, — what evidence is there that 
it did not require a further curtailment? That such 
is the fact, is agreed by the great body of Egyptolo- 
gers, though they may differ as to how much and 
where it should be made. 

Our conclusion, then, is very certain. We look 
in vain into the history and antiquities of Egypt for 
any evidence whatever of the existence of man ear- 
lier than the time of Noah. According to the Sep- 
tuagint chronology, we may allow full thirty centu- 
ries between that time and the Christian era, a period 
amply sufficient to account for every known trace of 
man in the valley of the Nile. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 8$ 



CHAPTER III. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (conh'n'UCd) , 
II. GREECE AND ROME. 

Identity of Origin between the Greeks and Romans. — Practical 
Character of the Greek Mind. — Greek Literature compre- 
hended all known Science. — Date of the First Olympiad. — 
Mythological Character of Times preceding. — The Trojan 
War. — Its Value in History and Chronology. — No Claim to 
an Antiquity exceeding Eighteen Centuries before Christ. — 
Date of the Foundation of Rome. 

The Greeks and Romans were so connected in 
their origin, as is indicated by their language, reli- 
gion, and mythology, that a separate consideration 
of their respective antiquities is not required by my 
present object. Indeed, the mythologic or prehis- 
toric traditions of the two peoples are so interwoveji 
and so nearly identical, that a separate consideration 
of them would scarcely be possible. It will be ne- 
cessary, therefore, to exhibit only the fuller and older 
traditions embodied in the Greek literature, to show 
all that has a bearing on our subject. 



86 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

The evidence drawn from this source, in relation 
to the antiquity of our race, is of great importance, 
in some respects more important than that afforded 
us by the literature of any other' ancient nation. 
For the Greeks were eminently practical. History 
and philosophy, as well as poetry, were cultivated 
by them, and their writings embody nearly all that 
was known in their times. A literature which has 
preserved in its poetry the most ancient traditions of 
the race, in its philosophical speculations the re- 
searches of the wisest men in antiquity as to the 
origin of things, and in its history all that the most 
learned men and travelers knew of other nations and 
people as well as their own, can scarcely fail to 
afford much valuable evidence in relation to the 
inquiry before us. We have already seen that we 
are indebted to it for nearly all the information we 
have of Egyptian antiquities, and its testimony can 
not be less trustworthy concerning those of Greece 
and Rome. 

Omitting, for the present, what is purely mytho- 
logical, the highest date in Grecian history, which 
is accurately fixed, is the first Olympiad, usually 
called the Olympiad of Choroebus, B. C. 776. There 
was history before that time, but no accurate chro- 
nology. Many things are recorded, and many ac- 
tual events described, but there was no era to which 



THE HUMAN RACE. 87 

to refer them, so that their true times can not be 
ascertained. Nor is this all. In Greece, as else- 
where, historic times emerge out of the dim ages of 
fable and legend, in which fact and fiction were 
indistinguishably blended. The period preceding 
the Olympic era can do little more than furnish a 
kind of background for the true historical picture of 
later times ; and if it can not afford us accurate 
chronology, it may furnish some materials to aid in 
fixing its outlines and limits. 

The most conspicuous event of which we have 
any account in that remote age, was the siege and 
destruction of Troy. It can hardly be called an his- 
torical event at all. A war in which the gods take 
sides, and enter into combat with each other and 
with men, whose heroes are demigods, and who 
fight in armor forged by divinities, can not be set 
down as sober fact. We are told that the beautiful 
Helen, the immediate occasion of. the war, was 
the daughter 'of Jupiter or Zeus. Achilles, the 
most illustrious chieftain of the Greeks, was the son 
of Thetis, an ocean nymph, ^neas, one of the 
Trojan heroes, was a son of Venus. The very oc- 
casion of the war originated in a dispute between 
the goddesses Juno, Venus, and Minerva, as to 
which was the most beautiful. And so on to the 
end of the chapter. Now, such a story belongs to 



88 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

mythology, rather than to history. And yet there 
can be no doubt that there- was spme historical fact 
at the foundation. There must have been an ancient 
city called Troy, which was besieged and taken by 
the Greeks. But that there ever were such person- 
ages, divine and human, as Homer describes, or 
such exploits as he attributes to them, may certainly 
more than admit of a doubt. 

Though the narrative of the Trojan war can not, 
therefore, be set down as veritable history, yet enough 
of fact was embraced under it to give it a real value, 
both in history and chronology. . The Greek writers 
made it an era^ to which they referred the events 
and supposed events of their early ages. The 
highest assigned date for the fall of Troy was that 
of Herodotus, about B. C. 1263. The Parian 
marble places it at B. C. 1209. Eratosthenes fixed it 
at B. C. 1183, or about 156 years prior to the build- 
ing of the temple by Solomon. The lowest date I 
have found in any author is B. C. 1120.* The date 
of Eratosthenes was adopted by Eusebius, and seems 
to be the most generally received. This era was a 
convenient one for the Greek historians. For in- 
stance, the " dynasty of Pelasgic chiefs which ex- 

* Clinton's Fasti Hellenici. The dates now given are taken 
from that author's Epitome of Grecian Chronology (ed. Oxford, 
1851), compiled from the larger work. pp. 61, 63. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 89 

isted in Greece before any other dynasty is heard 
of in Greek traditions," can be traced back only 
eighteen generations before the Trojan war. " Ina- 
chus, the father of Phoroneus, was the highest 
term in Grecian history."* The latter was of the 
eighteenth generation before the war, in the fifty- 
fifth year of whose reign the flood of Ogyges is said 
to have occurred, B. C. 1796. "Excepting this 
line," says Clinton, " none of the genealogies ascend 
.higher than the ninth, eighth, or seventh generation 
before the Trojan war." f 

The foundation of the Grecian states, then, was 
placed, by their own traditions, at a comparatively 
low antiquity, not exceeding, in any case, eighteen 
centuries before Christ. At that time the genera- 
tions of men were accounted the immediate descend- 
ants of the gods. Inachus was a deity, and his sons 
were said to be autochthonous, i. e., sprung from 
the soil, or aborigines of the country. J The Greeks 
did not claim, in their traditions, to be the oldest of 
nations, as did the Egyptians, Phrygians, and 
Scythians. § Danaus, Cadmus, Cecrops, and Pelops, 
the reputed founders of as many of their states, were 
immigrants from abroad, and brought with them 
arts and institutions already known in their native 
lands. 

* Clinton's Fasti Ilellenici. f Tbid. % Ibid. § Ibid.. 



pO ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

The origin of Rome is as uncertain as that of 
Greece. No fewer than twenty-five different le- 
gends have come down to us out of the mists of 
antiquity relating to the foundation of that city. 
They may, however, be reduced to three principal 
theories : first, that it was founded by Evander in 
the age preceding the Trojan war ; second, by 
-^neas and his associates shortly after that war ; 
and third, by Romulus and Remus, the twins, in 
the year B. C. 753. For our present purpose, it 
matters not w^h'ich of these is preferred. In point 
of fact, neither of them is of undoubted authen- 
ticity, and most modern historians do not pretend- 
to carry back the beginnings of Roman history 
more than two or three hundred years before Christ, 
regarding all before this as fabulous. 

Nothing, then, can be derived from either Greek 
or Roman history invalidating in the slightest de- 
gree the sacred chronology as to the age of man 
on the earth. The beginning of that history is con- 
fessedly far within the date of the time of Noah. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 9 1 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY {cOfltinued) , 

III. THE CHALDEANS. 

Extravagant Claims. — Berosus and his Writings. — His Annals 
of an Antediluvian Kingdom. — These evidently mythical. — 
His Measures of Time. — Elements of true Historj' in them. 
— Negatively, they contain Nothing inconsistent with Bible 
Chronology. — Positively, they tend to its Confirmation. — 
Earliest Historic Dynasty, B. C. 2458. 

The ancient Chaldeans, according to the usual 
interpretation of their records, claimed for their 
nation a higher antiquity than any other people, 
the Hindus, perhaps, excepted. As usual, however, 
in statements of this kind, there is great discrepancy 
in the numbers. I believe the largest number of 
years claimed by them, antecedent to historic times, 
is two million one hundred and fifty thousand. 
Other estimates claim 720,000, 490,000, 473,000, 
470,000, 432,000, 270,000, 31,000,* etc. Sometimes 

* Sir G. C. Lewis's Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, 
pp. 263, 286. 



92 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

these numbers profess to give the duration of Chal- 
dean history previous to the time of Alexander. 
Thus, according to Porphyry, a writer of the third 
century, " Callisthenes sent from Babylon to Aris- 
totle a series of astronomical observations, reaching 
back from the time of Alexander over a space of 
31,000 years." 

The authority most generally quoted in reference 
to Chaldean antiquities is Berosus, a priest of 
Belus at Babylon, and an historian who lived in the 
time of Alexander. He wrote the Chaldean history 
in three books. This work is now lost, except sorne 
few extracts preserved mostly in Josephus, . Euse- 
bius, and Syncellus, which again, especially those 
found in the last two authors named, were taken 
from the original work of Berosus by three heathen 
writers, — Apollodorus, Abydenus, and Alexander 
Polyhistor, — all of whom flourished between the 
time of Alexander the Great and the Christian era. 
According to them, Berosus " narrates that there 
were at Babylon the writings of many authors, pre- 
served with the greatest care, which comprised a 
history through a period of 215 myriads (2^150,000) 
of years,* in which was an account of the computa- 

* Thus in Euseb. Chron. (in Armen.), chap. ii. col. 109; but 
in Syncellus, p. 28, it is "fifteen myriads (150,000) years;" 
VfisQ jiiv^JtudoiV SexciTiivTt, 



THE HUMAN RACE. 93 

tions of time, a history of the heaven, the earth, and 
the sea, of the birth of mankind, of kings, and of 
their memorable deeds." 

The portion of these extracts which relates par- 
ticularly to our present object, is that which pro- 
fesses to give the annals of an antediluvian Chal- 
dean kingdom, of the flood, and of a long succession 
of the kings following through a period amounting in 
aggregate to 462,080 years. After this are enumer- 
ated five or six dynasties of Median, Chaldean, As- 
syrian, and Arabian monarchs, through a period of 
1550 years, to Pul, the Assyrian king mentioned in 
2 Kings XV. 19, I Chron. v. 26, B. C. 770. it 
devolves upon us, then, to inquire what historical 
value is to be attached to these supposed records. 

The antediluvian kingdom of ten reigns is said 
to have extended through a duration of 120 sari. 
" The first king," says Eusebius, quoting Berosus,* 
"was Alorus, a Chaldean from Babylon. He 
reigned ten sari. Now, a sarus is 3600 years ; he 
adds, " I know not how many neri and sossi.^'' A 
nerus^ he says, is 600 years, and a sossus 60 years. f 
Thus he reckons years in connection with the af- 
fairs of the ancients. 

* Chron. Armen. I. chap. i. 

t Syncellus says (p. 17), " Berosus wrote in $ari, neri, and 
sossi, of which a sarus is 3600 years, a tierus is 600, and a sossus 
60 years." 



94 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

" Having said these things, he goes on and enu- 
merates the Assyrian kings, giving their names in 
order. There were ten kings from Alorus, the 
first, to Xisuthrus, in whose time happened that first 
great flood of which Moses speaks. Now, the sum 
of the years which these kings reigned is 120 sari^ 
that is, forty-three myriads, and two thousand 
(432,000) years. He then writes in these express 
words. He says, ^Alorus being dead, his son Ala- 
parus reigned three sari ; after Alaparus, Almelon, 
from the city of Pantibiblis, a Chaldean, thirteen 
sari ; Ammenon, also from Pantibiblis, a Chaldean, 
succeeded Almenon, thirteen sari ; then Amegala- 
rus, of Pantibiblis, reigned eighteen sari ; then Da- 
onus, a Shepherd, from Pantibiblis, reigned ten 
sari ; afterwards Edoranchus, a Pantibiblian, reigned 
eighteen sari ; then Amempsimus, from Lancharis, 
a Chaldean, reigned ten sari ; then Otiartes, from 
Lancharis, a Chaldean, took the kingdom, eight 
Sjari ; Otiartes being dead, Xisuthrus ruled the king- 
dom eighteen sari. In his time happened the great 
flood. The sum is ten kings, and one hundred and 
twenty sari.^ Now, they say that these one hundred 
and twenty sari amount to forty-three myriads and 
two thousand years (432,000), since 2,' sarus is 3600 
years. These things Alexander Polyhistor nar- 
rates in his books. Now, if any one yields confi- 



THE HUMAN RACE. 95 

dence to these books, boasting of so many myriads 
of years, he must Hkewise believe many other mani- 
festly incredible things which they contain." 

It is very evident that this account, as it stands, 
is mythical. It is not history, and can afford us, 
therefore, no reliable chronology. No advocate of 
the extreme antiquity of the race, however san- 
guine, would, on the credit of this statement, pretend 
to date man's actual creation at 720,000, or 432,000 
years B. C. These immense periods must be 
classed with those that meet us in the earliest Egyp- 
tian chronology, which were appropriately remitted 
to the reigns of the gods and manes. 

But if not historical, have they not historical ele- 
ments in them? If they are not to be taken literally, 
do they not at least warrant the general conclusion 
that man has lived during a very Jong period ; thus, 
in some sense, justifying such authors as Bunsen, 
and Rodier, and Lyell, in their assumptions, and 
countenancing the tendency of the age to set aside 
the Mosaic narrative of the creation as unsupported 
and unworthy of acceptance? To answer these 
inquiries satisfactorily, let us examine, with some 
care, the statement itself. 

Various opinions have been held as to the meas- 
ures of time named in it. Suidas regards the 
sarus as equal to 222 lunar months, or nearly 18^ 



96 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

years,* so that the 120 sari^ assigned to the antedi- 
luvian kings, amount, according to him, to 2222 
years. This number he doubtless intended for 2242, 
the space of time between the creation and flood, 
as given in the Alexandrian Septuagint, thus mak- 
ing the Chaldean antediluvian period coextensive 
v^ith that related by Moses. Latham, f a distin- 
guished chronologer, regards the sarus equal to 4 
years and 340 days ; Raske, a space of 23 months ; 
and Ideler,J a lunar period which he can not define. 
But the most probable opinion is that of Alexander 
Polyhistor,§ that the sarus was a period of ten 
years, of 360 days each, which was the j^ear of the 
most ancient times — an opinion held by the two 
learned monks Anianus and PoWdorus (who flour- 
ished about A. D. 400) ; also by Africanus,|| al- 
though regarded by many as a mere expedient to 
get rid of a difficulty. This interpretation is strongly 

* Sari^ a measure and number among the Chaldeans. They 
make 120 sari equal to 2222 years, since a sarus is 222 lunar 
months, which amount to eighteen years and six months. Lex. 
sub voce ^Uqoi. 

t Latham's Chronographical Essays, pp. 81, 84. 

X Ideler on the era of the Chaldeans, in " Recherche Historique 
sur les Observationes astronomiques des Anciens," in Raima's 
Almageste, vol. iv. p. 62. 

§ Syncellus, p. 32, B. 

II See Jackson's Chron. Ant. vol. i. pp. 200-202. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 97 

corroborated by the probable etymology of the terms. 
Sarosy or sar, as it is very properly Anglicized, 
seems to have been allied to the Hebrew word "iry, 
asar^ ten, and sossus, from dd skcsk,* six, so that a 
sar would be lo years or 3600 days, a soss a sixth 
of a year, or 60 days, and a ncrus, or 7ter, of which 
the etymology is not apparent, a sixth of a sar, or 
600 days. This view is further confirmed by the 
fact that in the Semitic languages the word to desig- 
nate days was sometimes employed to signify years. 
Jackson asserts directly that in the Chaldee the word 
ydmhn, as in Hebrew the corresponding ydmhn, 
was employed to signify both days and years. f 
Indeed, the words denoting periods of time, in most 
ancient languages, etymologically mean a completed 
course or circuit, such as annus in Latin, I'roc, Ivog, 
iviaviho,, in Greek, n;^ in Hebrew, etc., and hence 
are sometimes applied to any revolution, whether of 
the sun or moon, so that the same word might de- 
note the solar year, the lunar month, or the solar 
day. Hence it would be both easy and natural for 
Berosus, or any one translating ancient records, to 
make the mistake of calling days years, especially 
when influenced by the desire, so common among 
historians, of enhancing, as much as possible, the 
antiquity of their own nations. 

♦ Latham's Essays, p. 84. f Chron. Ant. vol. i. p. 200. 

7 



98 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

As a further evidence of the correctness of this 
interpretation, it should be mentioned that this 
ancient manner of reckoning was continued after 
the flood of Xisuthrus through 9 sari, 2 neri, and 8 
sossi, when these terms are suddenly dropped, and 
the reigns given in solar years. It is true that the 
break is after a succession of 86 kings,. but the king- 
dom continues with a simple change of dynasties ; 
there is no passing from the reign of gods or demi- 
gods to that of mortal men, such as would be not 
only natural, but necessary, in order to account for 
the immense difference in the duration of the reigns. 
While the pretended antediluvian reigns varied from 
10,000 to 64,800 years in length, and those immedi- 
ately following averaged full 400 years each, the 
eight Median kings that succeeded extended only 
over 224 years, or an average of about 28 years ; 
after which came other dynasties (Chaldean, Ara- 
bian, and Assyrian), all of ordinary historical 
lengths. These discrepancies can only be ex- 
plained by the supposition that, in the prehistoric 
periods, days and months were magnified into 
years, as we have already seen was the case in the 
mythologic chronology of Egypt.* 

I have dwelt the longer on these measures of 
time in Chaldea, because the subject has not met 

* Ante, p. 67 seq. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 



99 



with justice from some writers of high standing. 
For example, Sir George Cornwall Lewis, in his 
Survey of th^ ' Astronomy of the Ancients, in 
speaking of Chaldean antiquities, gives all the high 
numbers which he found scattered through ancient 
authors, as expressing the antiquit}^ of that nation, 
as 720,000, 432,000, etc., years; but he adds not a 
word as to the peculiar manner in which time was 
computed by that people, and which would render 
an interpretation more nearly consistent with his- 
tory both plausible and probable. And Philip Smith, 
in his History of the World, — a very valuable 
work,. — mentions the Chaldean antediluvian period 
of 432,000 years, and the postdiluvian period of 
34,080 years, as computed by sars^ and explains 
that a sar is 3600 years, without a word to intimate 
that any other value has ever been given to the term, 
oris even possible.* He then exhibits a chrono- 
logical table of Babylonian history, of eight postdi- 

♦ He adds a note in the following unqualified language: "In 
the Babylonian system of notation, the numbei-s 6 and lo were 
employed alternately. Time was measured ordinarily by the 
soss, the ner^ and the sar — the soss being lo X 6 = 60 years, the 
ner 60 X 10 = 600 years, and the sar 600 X 6 := 3600 years. The 
next term in this series would evidently be 3600 X 10 = 36,000 
years, and the term following 36,000 X 6 = 216.000 years. Bero- 
sus' antediluvian cycle consists of 432,000, or two such periods." 
Vol. i. p. 195. 



lOO ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

luvian dynasties, extending down to B. C. 538, the 
first of which comprised eighty-six kings during the 
aforesaid period of 34,080 years. He simply styles 
this " mythic ; " yet when we consider how natural 
is the reckoning which makes the sarus 3600 days 
instead of years, — i. e., 10 years of 360 days each, 
— how simple and consistent with the rude and 
elementary knowledge of those early times, and 
how harmonious also with the facts of history as 
learned from other sources, we cannot but wondei 
that eminent scholars should have disregarded it, 
and preferred theories so much more complicated 
instead. Such preferences wholly mistake the char- 
acter of those remote ages when knowledge, espe- 
cially astronomical knowledge, was very simple, 
and embraced only the most obvious facts. At that 
time nothing was known of what in later times 
were called " lunar periods." The whole meaning 
was on the surface, and not involved in a mass of 
recondite facts, which required an intricate calcula- 
tion to discover, and an intricate theory to explain 
them. 

Our conclusion, then, is this : that while the im- 
mense periods of Chaldean antediluvian reigns are 
not historical, neither are they wholly mythical. 
In this respect they differ from the corresponding 
periods of Egyptian chronology. They contain his- 



THE HUMAN RACE.. lOI 

torical elements which have a twofold value — neg- 
ative and positive. The negative is that, inter- 
preted as they have now been, they contain nothing 
inconsistent with the Mosaic account of the creation. 
The very longest duration assigned to the antedilu- 
vian period may easily be brought within the 2256 
years assigned to it in the Septuagint. The positive 
value is, that so far as they go, they confirm the 
sacred record. As in the latter, they assert that 
there was an antediluvian period. The ten genera- 
tions of kings correspond with the line of ten patri- 
archs from Adam to Noah. The details of Chal- 
dean tradition are 'but dim and distorted, but easily 
recognizable, copies of the events mentioned in the 
Scriptures. Chaldean and Jewish antiquities cover 
precisely the same ground. Moses and Berosus 
speak of the same times, and, in -general, of the 
same facts; not, indeed, always with the same full- 
ness, — some particulars being recorded by one and 
some by the other, — but the ground covered by each 
is the same, and the two narratives, instead of being 
set in antagonism, should be taken as mutually con- 
firmatory. 

The date of the earliest historical dynasty after 
the flood is thought to be established thus : The list 
of astronomical observations, sent b}^ Callisthenes to 
Aristotle, in the time of Alexander the Great, ex- 



I02 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

tended backward in an uninterrupted series 1903 
years, i. e., till B. C. 2234. This is supposed to 
have been at the beginning of the Illd dynasty of 
Berosus, which was Chaldean, and under which the 
worship of the heavenly bodies began. Previous to 
this, a Median dynasty, who were probably of the 
Turanian or Scythian race, had reigned 224 years, 
carrying up the monarchy to B. C. 2458. Still fur- 
ther back was the before-mentioned " mythic " dy- 
nasty of 86 kings, whose duration was said to have 
been 34,080 years, so that the earliest historical date 
is that of the beginning of the second dynasty, B. C. 
2458.* The existence, however, of this Median 
dynasty, much more its assigned duration, is very 
uncertain, lying, as it does, in the very border land 
between fable and history, and with both, probably, 
in varying proportions, intermingling in it. 

* Smith's History of the World, vol. i. p. 196. 



THE HUMAN RACE. IO3 



CHAPTER V. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY {continued), 
III. THE HINDUS. 

Importance of the Discovery of the Sanskrit. — View of the San- 
skrit Literature. — The Vedas. — The Upavedas. — The Ve- 
DANGAS. — The Upangas. — These contain no History. — 
Severe Judgment upon the Sanskrit Literature by Mission- 
aries. — Reason for this. — Comparison between the Hindus 
and Greeks. — Origin of the Vedas. — Their Contents. — 
Their Antiquity. — They contain Nothing inconsistent with 
the Bible Chronology. 

The discovery of the Sanskrit language and liter- 
ature may almost be said to have constituted an era 
in the world. As the discovery of the continent of 
India — for it may appropriately be termed such — 
by the Portuguese, at the close of the fifteenth cen- 
tury, was an era in the history of commerce, so the 
introduction of its sacred language, and the treasures 
it contains, to the knowledge of Europeans, was an 
event of signal importance in the history of litera- 
ture, philology, and ethnology. This event oc- 



I ©4 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

curred about one hundred years ago, at which time 
the language began to be successfully unfolded by 
Sir William Jones and other Oriental scholars. At 
the present time, the Sanskrit literature has been 
pretty fully explored, though much remains to be 
done in reference to portions of it. Within the last 
ten years, several important works have been pub- 
lished upon it, and much discussion, active, if not 
violent, has been had both among European and 
American investigators. 

I shall endeavor, first, to give a summary idea of 
the nature of the Sanskrit literature, and, secondly, 
inquire what it contains, as bearing upon the ques- 
tion of the antiquity of man on the earth. 

I. The whole circle of Hindu knowledge and 
science is divided into eighteen parts. The first 
four of these are the Vedas proper, so called from 
ved^ the law, which are named respectively the 
Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, and 
the Atharva-Veda. These are regarded as having 
come immediately from God, and as containing 
the true knowledge of the Deity, of his religion, 
and of his worship. Each Veda consists of two 
parts, the first called Sanhita, comprising hymns, 
prayers, and ceremonies to be used in sacrifices 
and oblations ; the second, Brahmana^ describing 
the First Cause, and the creation of the world ^ also 



THE HUMAN RACE. IO5 

moral precepts, duties, rewards, punishments, puri- 
fications, etc. Next to these rank the Upavedas, 
or supplementary Vedas, of which there are four, 
treating of disease and medicine, of music, of the 
fabrication and use of arms, and of the mechanic 
arts. Next are six Vedangas, i. e., members of 
the Vedas, which are also supplementary to them, 
relating to the sacred sciences, pronunciation, 
meter, grammar, explanation of words, astronomy, 
and ceremonials. Lastly, four Upangas, called 
Purana, or history, Nyaya^ or logic, Mmiansa, or 
moral philosophy, and Dharmshastra^ or jurispru- 
dence. Several of these departments of literature 
contain numerous treatises. For example, there 
are six systems of philosophy, eighteen puranas, 
eighteen siddhanta, or treatises on astronomy, 
besides works on grammar, logic, etc. In addition 
to these, there are the Institutes of Manu, a code 
of civil and religious laws, and the two great epic 
poems, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, which 
are sometimes called a fifth Veda. 

Our purpose does not call for any detailed ac- 
count of the contents of these sacred books. It 
would indeed require a large volume, perhaps 
many volumes, to do this. The single inquiry 
before us is, What do they contain that affords any 
light as to the past duration of our race on earth? 



I06 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF 

The following estimate of the Sanskrit literature, 
from the pen of one who had thoroughly studied 
it, given in the Calcutta Review, will be, per- 
haps, our best answer to this inquiry : — 

" The Sanskrit language contains nothing of 
genuine importances no national annals, no biog- 
raphy of eminent patriots, statesmen, warriors, 
philosophers, poets, or others, who have figured 
on the theater of Indian life, public or private. 
Not a single page of pure historical matter, un- 
mixed with monstrous and absurd fable, is extant, 
or probably was ever written in it. It supplies us 
with no assistance whatever in rescuing from eter- 
nal oblivion the worthies or the curses of past 
ages. It affords no certain clew to the discovery 
or even the origin of the races who. first spoke or 
adopted it. Fabulous and extravagant legends are 
all that in this class it furnishes. European inge- 
nuity, penetration, and perseverance, may indeed, 
by dint of hard and continued labor, elicit a few 
isolated facts here and there, and by comparison of 
dates and circumstances, rejecting the crudities and 
absurdities that have gathered round them, bring 
them to bear upon some point of ancient story yet 
in the depths of obscurity. But nothing is certain ; 
all is only a happy guess, or probable inference, at 
best. The very principle of historic narration 



THE HUMAN RACE. IO7 

appears either to have never entered into the minds 
of early writers in this language, or else a base and 
selfish policy led them to falsify, obscure, and mysti- 
cize all events, in order to conceal their own usurpa- 
tions, violence, and injustice." 

The writer then proceeds to specify particulars in 
exemplification of these remarks, such as relate to 
geography, astronomy, music, medicine, the fine 
arts, etc., and making a partial exception in favor 
of logic, geometry, and arithmetic, finds little in 
these treatises worthy of commendation, or as hav- 
ing any value. Or if they contain some truth and 
real science, it is still mixed with a great deal that 
is crude, and fanciful, and puerile. He adds, "The 
real domain of Sanskrit literature is in the depart- 
ments of grammar, rhetoric, and poetry." (p. i8.) 
In this estimate this author is doubtless, in general, 
correct, though possibly, in some respects, he may 
be too severe. Missionaries — to which class he 
belongs — have often been accused of unfair judg- 
ments respecting the heathen, especially the Hin- 
dus. The explanation is natural and easy, and 
doe^s not compromise either their abilit}^ or disposi- 
tion to judge fairly. In their every-day work they 
come into contact with heathenism in all its corrup- 
tions, degradation, and sin, and know these to be 
the legitimate fruit of the doctrines embodied in their 



I08 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

literature. With this knowledge they are not in a 
state of mind to be carried into ecstasies over a fine 
piece of poetry, or an exhibition of refined skill in 
the niceties of grammar and logic, and are not likely 
to speak of them in terms of high commendation. 
When they draw a picture of any of these systems, 
there will of necessity be a dark background of 
practical heathen life that will impart more or less 
of its shade to the whole. On the other hand, our 
western philosopher and learned Orientalist, in the 
seclusion of his study, from which he steps into the 
most refined circles of Christian society, examines 
at his leisure a few of the masterpieces of the hea- 
then poets and philosophers, and is rapt into admi- 
ration of them. It is not necessary to weigh one of 
these judgments against the other. Both maybe 
right from the point of view in which the estimates 
are made. 

It is doubtless unjust to judge the Sanskrit litera- 
ture by that of later and more enlightened times. 
Grant that science is found in it intermixed with 
fable ; the same was true of that of all the ancient 
nations. Excepting perhaps the Greeks, as niuch' 
credit is due for the successful cuhivation of science 
and art to the Hindus as to any people of that age ; 
and if we go back of the times of Herodotus, they 
stand without a rival in any department of ancient 



THE HUMAN RACE. IO9 

learning. Professor Max Miiller, in his history of 
Sanskrit literature, gives an interesting comparison 
between the characters of the Hindus and the 
Greeks, a single paragraph from which I will quote. 
" Greece and India are indeed the two opposite 
poles in the historical development of the Aryan 
man. To the Greek, existence is full of life and 
reality ; to the Hindu, it is a dream and illusion. 
The Greek is at home where he is born. All his 
energies belong to his country : he stands or falls 
with his party, and is ready to sacrifice even his life 
to the glory and independence of Hellas. The 
Hindu enters this world as a stranger ; all his 
thoughts are directed to another world ; he takes no 
•part even where he is driven to act, and when he 
sacrifices his life it is but to be delivered from it." 

(p. 18.) 

This is strikingly true. The Greeks were emi- 
nently a practical people. This characteristic stands 
out prominently from the very beginning of tKeir 
national existence. The opposite is true of the Hin- 
dus. Their speculations in philosophy and religion 
are almost all connected with a preexistent state in 
the past, or an equally shadowy one in the future, 
or with topics of pure imagination; and it is very 
remarkable how seldom their literature in any de- 
partment has to do with the realities of this worldly 



no ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

life. Hence that most singular fact noticed by the 
writer before quoted, that from the first hymn of the 
first Veda to the last chapter in the last of the Pura- 
nas, there is not in all that literature, extending over 
a period of three thousand years, a single page of 
plain matter-of-fact history unmixed with fable, or 
a single truthful biographical account of any poet, 
statesman, or philosopher, such as constitutes so 
valuable a portion of Grecian literature. Nor has 
the Sanskrit any chronology. It does not in all its 
extent furnish a single reliable date by which any 
event, or series of events, of which it treats, may be 
assigned its proper chronological place in the world's 
history. We are actually indebted to the Greek 
historians for the only trustworthy date that can be 
used as a starting-point in Hindu chronology. It 
is the fortunate occurrence of the name of an Indian 
prince in connection with the name of one of Alex- 
ander's successors that enables us to fix the date of 
that prince's reign, and from thence determine ap- 
proximately that of other events, either before or 
after it, in the annals of that people. 

While, however, we look in vain in the Sanskrit 
for any history or chronology asserting an earlier 
history of our race than we have been taught to 
believe, it may be asked whether the Sanscrit itself 
is not such evidence. There can be no doubt that 



THE HUMAN RACE. Ill 

the Vedas are among the oldest of the extant writ- 
ings of antiquity, perhaps tlie very oldest. It is an 
important inquiry, as bearing upon the subject in 
hand. What were their origin and their probable 
date? 

In respect to their origin, the Hindus put forth 
various conflicting statements ; and even in the^ later 
portions of the writings which are regarded as parts 
of the Vedas, it is ascribed to different sources. 
Thus it is alleged that they are eternal ; that they 
issued from the mouth of Brahma at the creation ; 
that they are the breath of Brahma, etc. It is said 
that the Rig- Veda was produced from fire, the Ya- 
jur-Veda from air, and the Sama-Veda from the 
sun ; again, that the goddess Saraswati is the 
mother of the Vedas ; still again, that they are de- 
rived from the mystical victim Purusha, or from 
the Gayatri, a sacred verse personified as a god- 
dess, the wife of Brahma ; * or once more, that they 

* The Gayatri, or holiest verse in the Vedas. This is merely 
a prayer, as follows: "Let us adore the supremacy of that 
divine sun, the godhead, who illuminates all, who recreates all, 
from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, whom we 
invoke to direct our understandings aright in our progress 
towards his holy seat." — Ratntnohufi Roy, p. 117. 

This verse is preceded by a mysterious monosyllable (Om), a 
tj'pe of the three divinities Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, and the 
essence of the Vedas, and by the three scarcely less sacred 



112 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

are the offspring of Time. This enumeration is not 
designed to be exhaustive. 

These assertions show that there was much specu- 
lation among the Hindus regarding the origin of 
their sacred books ; not, however, as implying any 
question as to their divine inspiration, which was 
never denied except by a single one of their schools 
of philosophy, and the heretical sect of the Buddhists. 
Nor did these statements, so far as I am aware, 
indicate speculations or discussions analogous to 
those held respecting the origin and inspiration of 
the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, but rather as 
to the divine character . and authority of these writ- 
ings, in what the Hindus would call a higher sense. 

Each sukta, or hymn, has for its reputed author 

words, bhur, bhuwar, and sivar, denoting earth, atmosphere, and 
heaven." 

It is said, "Whoever shall repeat these lines, day by day, for 
three years, without negligence, shall approach the most high 
God, become free as air, and acquire after death an ethereal 
essence." — Rammohun Roy, pp. no, 117. 

"The Veda begins," says Rammohun Roy, "and concludes 
with three peculiar and mysterious epithets of God: first, Om; 
second, Tat ; third, Sut. The first of these signifies ' that 
being which preserves, destroys, creates.' The second implies 
* that only being which is neither male nor female.' The third 
announces ' the true being.' These collective terms simply 
affirm. One unknown true being is the Creator, Preserver, 
AND Destroyer of the universe." — Trans, of the Vedas, p. 22. 



THE HUMAN RACE. II3 

a rishi, or teacher, by whom, in Brahmanical phra- 
seology, it was " seen," that is, to whom it was re- 
vealed. For the names of these rishis we are 
indebted, except when incidentally mentioned in the 
hymns themselves, to an index of the contents of the 
Vedas, which also specifies the meter and the num- 
ber of stanzas in each hymn. The Rig-Veda has 
1017 hymns, and 10,417 stanzas (there is a differ- 
ence of six or eight sta'iizas in different enumera- 
tions) , the authorship of which is attributed to nearly 
100 different rishis. Many of these hymns and 
parts of hymns appear in the three other Vedas, 
which are of a later date ; indeed, the whole of the 
second or Sama-Veda has been found to have been 
taken from the first. The same is true of large por- 
tions of the contents of the Yajur and Atharva Vedas, 
so that these 1017 hymns of the Rig- Veda are re- 
garded as constituting almost all of the original 
Vedic hymns. Some of their reputed authors are 
the subjects of legends in the later mythology, but 
many are not mentioned in other parts of Sanskrit 
literature. 

In regard to the antiquity of these ancient writ- 
ings, scholars are by no means agreed. Baron 
Bunsen thinks that some of the hymns were com- 
posed as long ago as B. C. 3000. Professor Whitney, 
who is probably the first Sanskrit scholar in Amer- 
8 



114 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

ica, has expressed the opinion that they were written 
during the first half of the second millennium before 
Christ (B. C. 2000-1500). Professor Max Miiller, 
who has nearly completed his most valuable edition 
of the Rig-Veda, thinks that their collection and 
arrangement in their present form took place at 
least as early as from the 12th to the loth century 
before Christ, but that their composition occupied 
quite an indefinite period of some centuries before. 
The late Professor Wilson, who was, I believe, re- 
garded as the best Sanskrit scholar in England, 
thought Miiller's date too recent by some two or 
three centuries. Ritter supposes they were com- 
posed or collected from 1600 to 1400 B. C. The 
most modern date I recollect to have seen is from 
1000 to 1200 B. C. In each case, some centu- 
ries previous are allowed for their composition. 

My own opinion, if I may be allowed to express 
one, after the eminent scholars just named, is, that 
the collection and arrangement of these hymns, as 
we now have them in the Rig- Veda Sanhita, was 
made as early as the 15th or i6th century before 
Christ, and that the composition of the earliest of 
them may have been some five centuries previous, 
carrying it back to about the time of Abraham. 
This opinion is based partly on the stjde of the 
language, which is simple and archaic, and had 



THE HUMAN RACE. II5 

become in a measure obsolete when the next por- 
tion of the Vedic. literature (the Brahmanas) were 
written. The meters also are archaic, and unknown 
in later versification, and in the later of the hymns 
reference is made to the earlier ones as already 
ancient. Now, since the period of the Brahmana 
must, on separate grounds, be made to begin at least 
as early as B. C. looo, it seems necessary to date 
the collection and arrangement of the hymns two or 
three centuries earlier, and their composition at 
least as many more. 

Again, there is appended to these collections of 
hymns a tract on astronomy — the lyotisha, — the 
object of which is to prescribe rules for regulating 
the time of the sacrifices prescribed in the hymns. 
In this treatise there is a record of the places of the 
solstitial points at the time. These places are about 
twenty-four degrees east of those they occupied at 
the time when the modern Hindu sphere was fixed, 
viz., Mesha, in the ist of Aries, which was about 
A. D. 500. Calculating from the known rate of the 
precession of the equinoxes, we are carried back to 
the early part of the twelfth century before Christ 
as the time when the recorded observation was 
made. And we are safe in assuming that so much 
knowledge of astronomy as is disclosed in this 
observation and record, and in the complicated rules 



Il6 ANTIQiJITY AND UNITY OF 

derived from them for regulating the times of the 
sacrifices, requires at least a period of several cen- 
turies for its growth. Such a system of rites, so 
regulated, with its corresponding literature, is not 
the product of one century, or of two or three. And 
this view is strengthened by the fact that there are, 
in connection with Hindu astronomical works, inti- 
mations that at the time the modern Hindu sphere 
was fixed at the ist degree of Aries, A. D.'5oo, the 
equinoxes had fallen back twenty-seven degrees 
from the places they occupied when first observed 
by their ancient astronomers. This brings the time 
of those first observations into the middle of the fif- 
teenth century before the Christian era. It should, 
however, in fairness, be added, that some Sanskrit 
scholars do not attach so much importance to this 
lyotisha record as is implied in the foregoing re- 
marks, since it is assumed that in the absence of 
suitable astronomical instruments, it was not possible 
for the Hindus to make their observations with a 
sufficient degree of accuracy to w^arrant these definite 
results. 

Our conclusion, then, from a careful survey of the 
Sanskrit language and literature, is the same as 
from that of the other ancient peoples of the East. 
The oldest Hindu writings, and the earliest astro- 
noniical observation on record, can not be proved 



THE HUMAN RACE. II7 

to have had an earHer date than the fourteenth or 
fifteenth century before Christ, though a few hun- 
dred more may be conceded as probable. T^e old- 
est astronomical treatise, which has been regarded 
as an important witness against the Bible, is proved 
incontrovertibly to have been composed some four 
or five centuries after Christ. And as the work of 
bringing to light the ancient literature of the Brah- 
mas proceeds, the tendency among European schol- 
ars is to bring it within more and more modern 
limits. This tendency to modernize is sometimes, 
doubtless, suffered to proceed too far. But however 
this may be, this fact may be regarded as estab- 
lished, viz., that the ancient literature of India affords 
no materials for disproving the truthfulness of the 
Bible ; on the contrary, it contains much that cor- 
roborates the claims of the sacred volume to a divine 
authenticity. 



Il8 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY Of' 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY {contmued) . 

V. THE CHINESE. 

First explorers of Chinese Literature. — Jesuit and Protestant 
Missionaries. — View of the Chinese Chronology. — Pauthier's 
System. — The Ante-historic Period. — The Semi-historic. — 
The Historic. — How far is this Chronology reliable .f* — Views 
of Pauthier. — Of Amiot. — Of Williams. — Examination of 
the Elements of Computation. — Testimony of the Shu-king. 
— The Cycle of Sixty Years. — Statements of Rev. J. Cham- 
bers. — Of Dr. Legge. — Elements of the Chinese Chronology 
borrowed. — Its present Form dates only to about the Chris- 
tian Era. — Materials for the History of the earliest Dynasties 
unreliable. — The Shu-king, how compiled. — Its Destruc- 
tion and Recovery. — Conclusion. 

The first European explorers of the literature and 
antiquities of China were the Jesuit missionaries, 
who labored in that country in the early part of the 
eighteenth century, among the most prominent of 
whom were Fathers Amiot, Souciet, and Gaubil. 
The latter of these appears to have been distin- 
guished for his investigations in the department of 



THE HUMAN RACE. lip 

science for which his mathematical education had 
specially prepared him. M. Gaubil went to China 
in 1723, at the age of thirty-four, and died there, 
after a laborious life, in 1759. -^^^ dissertations on 
various subjects — particularly on the astronomy of 
the Chinese, which he sent to his friends at home 
— awakened an interest in Oriental studies, and, 
with the contributions of other missionaries, greatly 
aided the study of Chinese literature in France. At 
the close of the last century and the beginning of the 
present, Europe, especially France, could boast of 
many eminent Sinologues, as M. vStanislaus Julien, 
M. G. Pauthier, MM. Biot, father and son. 

It is worthy of notice that the principal writers 
on Chinese astronomy, as Delambre and Biot, rely 
mostly on the works of Gaubil as authority. His 
WTitings and opinions are always mentioned with 
respect, though they have been subjected to severe 
criticism. His translations have been revised, and 
in some passages modified. This was to have been 
expected, while as a pioneer in Chinese studies his 
labors have been very valuable. The position of the 
Jesuit missionaries in connection with, and at the 
head of, the Tribunal of Mathematics, afforded them 
rare opportunities for becoming acquainted with the 
science of that country ; and the results of their 
labors furnished a good foundation for those who 



I20 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

should come after them in the same field of re- 
search. 

In the present century, Protestant missionaries, 
English and American, have pursued these studies 
with success, and, in connection with other Eu- 
ropean scholars, have brought the treasures of 
Chinese literature, such as they are, within reach 
of all. The last, if not the greatest contribution to 
this end, is a work by the Rev. James Legge, D. D., 
of the London Missionary Society, entitled The 
Chinese Classics: with a Translation^ Critical and 
Exegetical Notes ^ Prolegomena^ and Copious In- 
dexes, The work consists of seven volumes, and 
contains the Confucian Analects, an account of 
Mencius, his disciples and doctrines, the Shu-king, 
the annals of the Bamboo books, so called, etc. 
These are specially valuable as bearing upon our 
present discussion, the Shu-king being the most im- 
portant of the Chinese classics, in exhibiting the 
ancient science of that country. 

Two points of inquiry here claim our attention : 

1. What is the ancient Chinese chronology? and 

2. What are the reasons for regarding it as reliable, 
or otherwise? 

In regard to the first, I give the elements of 
the system as found in M. G. Pauthier's His- 
tory of China, in the Univers^ which is, I be- 



THE HUMAN RACE. 121 

lieve, the commonly received chronology, of 
China.* 

Pauthier divides his chronology into three pe- 
riods — ante-historic^ semi-historic^ and historic. 

The first period begins with Pan-kou, the prim- 
eval man, who is placed by the native historians 
at from 2,000,000 to 96,000,000 years before the 
death of Confucius, B. C. 479. During this in- 
terval flourished the three sovereignties of Heaven, 
Earth, and* Man, followed by the ten periods, the 
last of which began with the Emperor Hoang-ti. 
In reference to those mythic times, I need only 
remark that there is much in the details to remind 
us of the corresponding era among the Hindus. 
Indeed, Pauthier says, if the tradition in respect 
to Pan-kou is not borrowed from India, it comes 
from the same source as the Hindu traditions ; 
"for," he continues, " it is impossible not to recog- 
nize in the name and attributes of the Chinese 
Pan-kou^ or, softening the pronunciation, Afan-hou^ 
— a transcription as exact as the former for a cer- 
tain latitude, — the Indian Manou, who acts the same 

* It is followed by Drs. Gutzlaff and Williams, in their works 
on China, except in relation to ante-historic times. After the 
emperor Hoang-ti, they agree. Before this, Gutzlaff gives no 
dates, and Williams goes back to Fuh-hi, making his reign to 
begin B. C. 2852. 



122 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

part in the mythological tradition of India." (Chine, 
vol. ii. p. 22.) Both the Hindu and Chinese tra- 
ditions, as we shall show hereafter, are derived 
originally from the events related in the Mosaic 
records. The ten periods are, doubtless, the ten 
generations from Adam to Noah. 

Semi-historic times began with Fuh-hi, B. C. 
3468,* who is said to have reigned 150 years. He 
was succeeded by Chin-noung (Shinnung) and 
others, the last of whom was Hoang-ti, whose reign 
began in B. C. 2698. Wiltiams, however, enumer- 
ates these emperors thus: Fuh-hi, 115 years; Shin- 
nung, 140 years; Hoang-ti, i 00 years, who began 
to reign B. C. 2697. He regards historic times as 
commencing with Fuh-hi. 

Historic times begin in the reign of Kfoang-ti. 
The first cycle of sixty years, so famous in Chinese 
chronology, dates from the sixty-first year of this 
emperor, B. C. 2637. After him, Shan-hau reigned 
84 years; Chiuen-hiuh, 78; Kuh, 78; Yau, 102; 
Shun, 50. Then follow 26 dynasties of monarchs, 
beginning with the Hia, B. C. 2205, and ending 
with the present (the Tau-kwang), embracing 235 
sovereigns. Or, if we begin with Fuh-hi, the num- 

* Williams puts the beginning of Fuh-hi's reign at B. C. 2852. 
— Mid. Kingdom^ ii. p. 203. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 23 

ber is 243, embracing a period of 4721 years, to 
A. D. 1869.* 

Minute chronological detail does not fall within 
my present purpose. We are now concerned only 
with the earliest portion of the system, and in this 
only with the principal dates. 

The author informs us that this chronological 
record was forwarded from Peking, in 1767, by the 
Cathohc missionary P. Amiot, who says of it, " It 
is a chronological table of all the sovereigns who 
have reigned in China, ranged in the order of the 
cycles, and exactly calculated from authentic mon- 
uments, from the sixty-first year of the Emperor 
Hoang-ti ... to the present reigning monarch 
(1769), . . . and printed at Peking, in the imperi- 
al palace, after having been subjected to the close 
examination of the different academies or literary 
tribunals of this capital, in the 32d year of Kien-' 
loung, — i. e., in 1767 of our era, — to serve ever 
after as a rule for the historians and other public 
writers of the empire." f 

The inquiry now arises. Is this chronology relia- 
ble? It comes to us, with high claims, in a scientific 
dress, and challenges our confidence. How far is 
this confidence deserved? 

* Williams (Summary, ii. p. 229), whom I have followed in 
the number of the dynasties, being more definite and complete 
than Pauthier. t Pauthier's Chine, ii. p. 26S. 



124 4NTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

In answering this inquiry, I will first allude to 
some of the opinions which have been expressed in 
its favor, and then adduce w^hat may be said on the 
other side. 

M. Pauthier evidently accepts this chronology, 
even in its earliest dates. In summing up what he 
has to say regarding it, he remarks, " This confi- 
dence granted to the Chinese historians can not be 
condemned, for we can boldly affirm that no people 
ever possessed bodies of history so complete and so 
authentic as the Chinese. This should not surprise 
us, when we recollect that through all time, history, 
or the intelligent registering of human events, has 
been honored and favored in China ; that since the 
Emperor Hoang-ti, 2637 years before our era, there 
has existed an historical tribunal in the capital of 
the empire, the members of which, chosen from the 
most distinguished of the literati, have, in many 
respects, the prerogatives and permanency of our 
magistrates." 

He then cites, at length, the opinion of Amiot, 
one of the most laborious and learned of the French* 
missionaries in China, to the following import : — 

" The Chinese annals are preferable to the historic 
monuments of all other nations because they are the most 
free from fables, the most ancient, the most consecutive, 
and the most abounding in facts. . . . They have 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 25 

epochs, demonstrated by astronomical observations, joined 
to the monuments of every kind, in which the annals 
abound ; they furnish to each other reciprocal proofs, 
mutually sustain each other, and together concur to show 
the good faith of the writers who have transmitted them 
to us. . . . They can aid us to mount up surely, even 
to the first centuries after the renewal of the world, as 
they furnish, for that purpose, the necessary guides and 
assistants, such as the cycle of sixt;f years, . . . the 
radical epoch of which is B. C. 2637 ; . . . genealo- 
gies of the first sovereigns which bear the stamp of verity 
in the lacunae which are found in them, and which no 
one has attempted to fill, though it would have been easy 
to do so had any one wished to add anything of his own ; 
chronological tables which mark with exactitude the 
uninterrupted succession of all the emperors that have 
reigned for more than four thousand years. 

" And, finally, those annals are in themselves the most 
authentic literary work there is in the world, because 
there is not in the world {tout Vunivers) a work which 
has been so elaborated during the space of nearly eigh- 
teen hundred years, that has been revised, corrected, and 
augmented as new material was discovered, by so great a 
number of learned men united, provided with all possible 
assistance, etc." And Pauthier indorses all this, as he 
closes the argument, by saying, ^' Chinese history, there- 
fore, possesses all the characters of certitude which his- 
torical criticism has a right to demand." * 

* Pauthier's Chine, vol. ii. pp. 32, 33. 



126 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

This opinion of Amiot, and of his biographer 
Pauthier, has been ver}^ extensively received. Wil- 
liams, in his "Middle Kingdom" (vol. ii. p. 201), 
says of it, " The earliest records of the Chinese 
correspond rather too closely with their present 
character to receive full belief; but while they may 
be considered as unworthy of entire confidence, it 
will be allow^ed th«t they present an appearance of 
probability and naturalness hardly possessed by the 
early annals of Greece." 

Let us now turn to the other side, and see what 
grounds there are for calling in question the relia- 
bleness of that chronology, at least in regard to its 
earlier dates. 

Pauthier gives the following as " the chronological 
elements that serve as a basis to the certainty of the 
Chinese history : " — 

" These elements are very simple and very regu- 
lar. They are, i. The civil or equinoctial year, 
composed of three hundred and sixty-five and a 
quarter sidereal days, recognized and followed in 
China from the highest antiquity, as we shall see 
hereafter, and which corresponds perfectly to our 
Julian year; 2. The cycle of sixty years, the series 
of which has been continued, without interruption, 
from the 6ist year of the reign of Hoang-ti (B. C. 
2637), and with as much regularity as the centuries 



TtlE HUMAN RACE. 1 27 

in European computation. Our common year 1834 
thus corresponds to the 31st of the 75th sexagenary 
Chinese cycle. There is no other chronology which 
offers so much certainty for so long a space of time." 
(Vol. ii. p. 27.) 

I. These assumptions respecting the Chinese 
calendar, with its alleged JuHan year of 365^ 
days, are based upon a passage occurring in the 
Shu-king, which Pauthier renders in French, 
thus : — 

" L'Empereur dit, ' Hi et Ho ; une periode solaire est 
de trois cent soixante-six jours ; en intercalant une lune 
et en determinant ainsi quatre saisons, I'annee se trouve 
exactement completee. Cela etant parfaitement regie, 
chaque functionnaire s'acquittera, selon le. temps et la 
saison de son emploi ; et tout sera dans le bon ordre.' " * 

Dr. Legge's translation is as follows : " The em- 
peror said, * Ah, you ! Hi and Ho; a round year 
consists of three hundred sixty and six days. By 
means of an intercalary month do you fix the four 
seasons, and complete the determination of the year. 
Thereafter, in exact accordance with this, regulat- 
ing the various officers, all the works of the year 
will be fully performed." f 

* Translation of Le Chou-king in Les Livres Sacr6s de 
rOrient, p. 47, par. 8. 

t Chin. Classics, vol. iii. part i, p. 23. Appendix, I. 



128 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

There is some difference in these versions, though 
perhaps it is not greatly important as bearing on 
the present subject. That of Dr. Legge makes 
the emperor to command the astronomers by inter- 
calating a month to fix the four seasons, and com- 
plete the determination of the year, saying that the 
round 3^ear consists of 366 days. The other ver- 
sion represents the work of adjustment as already 
made. The two points of interest apparently con- 
tained in it are a knowledge of the year as consist- 
ing of 366 days, and of the principle of intercala- 
tion to bring the seasons into their proper places. 
As to the first, the French missionaries all assume 
that it means only that each fourth year has "^66 
days, the three intervening ones having but 365. 
But the passage itself, in either version, has not 
a word to warrant this assumption. As to the 
second, the intercalation was not to be of one day 
each fourth year, but of one month. Whether this 
was to be done at stated intervals, in order to 
retain the seasons in their proper places, or once 
for all, does not appear. What were the princi- 
ples of intercalation observed at that early period, 
if any. Dr. Legge says " we cannot tell." He 
adds, " Previous to the Han dynasty, Chinese 
history does not furnish us with the details on the 
subject of intercalation. In the time of that dy- 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 29 

nasty (B. C. 202-A. D. 221), we find what is 
called the Metonic cycle,* well known. It is not 
mentioned as any discovery of that age. 
No doubt it came down to the Han from the 
Chan, and was probably known in China long 
before Meton reformed the Athenian calendar ac- 
cording to its principles, B. C. 432." 

Dr. Legge also quotes from a native commen- 
tator of the Shu-king this remark : " When it is 
said that the year consists of 366 days, we are to 
understand that Yaou was speaking only in round 
numbers." 

While, therefore, we must concede no small 
praise to the ancient Chinese, on account of their 
calendar, we can not admit that there is any evi- 
dence of the accuracy that is claimed for it. The 
inference, that in the 24th century before Christ 
they were acquainted with the Julian year of 
365^ days, is an unwarrantable straining of the 
text. 

2. The other chronological element embraced 
in the Chinese system, according to Pauthier, is 
the cycle of sixty years. We have seen that this 
claims to have been introduced into use in the 
year B. C. 2637. If it could be proved that it 
was actually so employed from that early date, it 

* Note, p. 134. 

9 



130 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY 'OF 

would be a fact of great importance. Williams 
says of it, * " The uniform adherence to this pecu- 
liar mode of reckoning time, certainly since the 
days of Confucius, and the high probability that 
it was generally adopted long before his time, the 
remembrance of the individual Nau the Great, 
who invented it, and the odd date of its adoption 
in the middle of a reign, are all strong testimonies 
in favor of the date and antiquity ascribed to it." 
This very claim, however, in its qualifying phrase, 
" certainly since the days of Confucius," is a vir- 
tual admission that there is no -proof of its use 
prior to that time. But the claim itself is not borne 
out by facts. Other authorities of equal credit assert 
that the sexagenary cycle was not used to chronicle 
years till within about a century of the Christian era ; 
some say till even after that era. Dr. Legge, in 
his Prolegomena to the translation of the Shu-king, 
has inserted an essay by the Rev. John Chalmers, 
" On the Astronomy of the ancient Chinese," in 
which this point, among others relevant to our sub- 
ject, is ably discussed. I quote a few para- 
graphs : — 

" The invention of the cycle of sixty is ascribed to 
Hoang-ti (B. C. 2637), ^"^^ i'^ particular its applica- 
tion to years is affirmed to have commenced in his 

* Mid. Kingdom, ii. p. 201. 



• THE HUMAN RACE. I31 

reign ; but this is a mere fiction. It was not applied 
to years even in the time of Confucius." The writer 
then describes the structure of the cycle, showing 
that its original application was to days, for which 
purpose he admits it was " of very ancient practice." 
The first instance of its use in this manner, so far as 
known, dates b^ck to B. C. 1752, in the commonly 
received chronology, which, however, he pro- 
nounces worthless. He then continues : — 

" The state of confusion in which Chinese chro- 
nology is found to be, down to the time of the East- 
ern Chan,* and the fact that not a single instance of 
the application of the cycle to years can be found 
till after the classical period, are sufficient to satisfy 
us that this invaluable method of dating years was 
never used in ancient times. The first attempt to 
arrange the years in cycles of 60 is found in Sze- 
ma-Ts'een's Historical Records, in a table con- 
structed for the purpose of intercalation, and extend- 
ing over a period of seventy-six years, the first year 
being B. C. 103. But instead of using the Chinese 
cyclical characters, he employs words of two and 
three syllables, which, considered from a Chinese 
stand-point, must be pronounced barbarous." 

Mr. Chalmers closes his discussion of this point 

* The Chan dynasty began to reign B. C. 1121. 

t The Tsin dynasty began B. C. 249; the Han B. C. 202. 



132 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

in these words : "So, then, the cycle of sixty years 
can not have commenced earlier than the Han, and 
owes its present form to the scholars of the Tsin, 
although the Chinese, for the most part, still glory 
in the delusion that it was invented by Hoang-ti 
( 60 X 75 = ) 4500 years ago." 

Dr. Legge's own testimony is to the same effect. 
Having advanced the opinion that Hoang-ti, to 
whom the invention of the cycle is ascribed, is a 
fabulous person, he adds, — 

" What is of more importance to observe is, that the 
cycle, as it is now universally recited and written, was 
not employed before the end of the former Han dynasty, 
i. e., until after the commencement of the Christian era, to 
chronicle years at all ; its exclusive use was to chronicle 
days. Koo-yen-woo, one of the ablest scholars of the 
present dynasty, says expressly on this point, ' The 
twenty-two cycle characters (i. e., the ten stem characters 
from ked to kwet^ and the twelve branch characters from 
tsze to kae) were used by the ancients to chronicle days^ 
not years. For recording years, there were the ten 
names of oh-fung^ etc., down to twan-mung^ and the 
twelve branch names, she-t' e-kih^ etc., down to juy-haii. 
The way of later times, to say that a year was ked-tsze., 
and so on, was not the ancient way.' Yen-woo then 
quotes from the preface of the Wae-ke^ or ' Additional 
Records,' a supplement to the ' General Survey' of history 
by Sze-ma-kwang^ with whom Lew-shu, its author, was 



THE HUMAN RACE. 133 

associated, the following .testimony : 'The years of the 
sovereigns before and aYtef Fu-hi down to King Le, are, 
I apprehend, dark, and hardly to be ascertained,* and v/e 
borrow the names of the kea-tsze cycle to chronicle them, 
adding himself, ' When did this practice of using the cycle 
names to chronicle j/^j^ri- commence? It commenced in 
the time of the usurper Mang.' (A. D. 9-22)." f 

Mr. Chalmers -is of the opinion that the Chinese 
borrowed the elements of their chronological sys- 
tem. He remarks, " In the second century before 
the Christian era, the Chinese made extraordinary 
efforts to open communication with the west. They 
explored due west as far as the borders of Persia. 
At the same time they became acquainted with the 
northern parts of India. Sze-ma-Ts'een, who gives 

* The first king, Le, in the list of Chinese sovereigns, is the 
tenth of the Chan djnastj, beginning to reign B. C. 878. 

t Legge's Chinese Classics, vol. iii. prol. p. 82. " Sze-ma- 
kwang gets the credit of fixing the standard chronology; buf let 
me call the attention of the student to Choo-he's (died A. D. 
1200) account of the matter. He tells us, * When Kwang first 
made a chronological soheme, his earliest date was the first year 
ofWei-l6e (B. C. 424). Afterward he extended his dates to the 
time of Kung and Ho (B. C.840). After this again, he made 
his " Examination of Antiquity," beginning with the highest 
period; but he could give no dates earlier than that time of Kung 
and Ho. It was Shaou-K'ang-ts(?e who pushed the calculations 
up to the first year of Yaou,' " — i. e., to B. C. 2357. — lb. 

I am unable to state the precise time when Sze-ma-kwang lived. 



134 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

a full history of these discoveries, does not, indeed, 
tell us that they became acquainted with the period 
of Galippua,* either through the Bactrians or the 
Hindus ; but there is scarcely a shadow of doubt 
that this was the case. In no other way can we ac- 
count for the sudden appearance in Ts'een's history 
of a method so far in advance of anything known 
before in China, and one which had already been 
employed in the west for more than two centuries. f 

This opinion, while probably correct in the main, 
is, I think, erroneous as to the derivation of the 
cycle of sixty from a foreign source. There 
seems to be good evidence that it was employed 
in comparatively ancient times, though its applica- 
tion was to days only. This supposition may ex- 
plain some seeming contradictions and inconsisten- 
cies in the Chinese records, while it admits the 
antiquity of the cycle itself. 

From what has now been advanced, it appears that 
the received Chinese chronological system, in its 
present form, owes its origin to scholars of the Han 

* A correction of the Metonic cycle of 19 solar years, at which 
time the new moons return to th^ same days of the year. This 
period exceeding 235 lunations by 7^ hours, Calippus pro- 
posed to drop a day at the end of four cycles, or 76 years, by 
changing one of the months of 30 days to 29 days. — Brande*s 
Diet 

t Chin. Classics, vol. iii. prol. pp. 96, 99. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I35 

dynasties (B. C. 202-A. D. 220.) That was the 
Augustan age in Chinese literature. Those schol- 
ars, doubtless, made the best use of the materials 
at their command in constructing an accurate chro- 
nology of their national history. The question then 
remains, Were those materials reliable? Did they 
have sufficient data for constructing an accurate 
chronology for times very long anterior to their 
own? 

On this point. Dr. Legge remarks (vol. iii.^prol. 
p. 83), "There can be no doubt that, before the 
Han dynasty, a list of sovereigns, and the lengths 
of their several reigns, was the only means which 
the Chinese had of determining the duration of their 
national history.. And it would still be a sufficiently 
satisfactory method if we had a list of sovereigns, 
and of the years each reigned, that was complete 
and reliable. We do not have this, however. Even 
in the earlier part of the Han dynasty, Sze-ma- 
Ts'een's father and himself were obliged to content 
themselves with giving simply the names and order 
of most of the rulers of Shang and Hia.* The 
lengths of the several reigns in the standard chro- 
nology have been determined mainly, I believe, to 
make the whole line stretch out to the years which 
had been fixed, on astronomical considerations, for 

* The Illd and lid dynasties, B. C. 2205-1 123. 



136 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the periods of Chung-k'ang of the Hia dynasty, and 
of Yaou." 

From this opinion of Dr. Legge 1 see no good 
reason for dissenting. It finds abundant support in 
the facts and arguments which he has furnished. 
He seems to regard the chronology from the com- 
mencement of the Chan dynasty (B. C. 1122) as 
reHable ; that of the Shang dynasty (B. C. 1766- 
II 22) as doubtful in regard to the details of reigns 
and dates ; while that of the first or Hia dynasty is 
still more unreliable. 

The founder of this dynasty was Yu the Great. 
The accounts given of him show that he was a 
mythological personage. His birth was preternat- 
ural. The record says, " His mother saw a falling 
star, which went through the constellation Maou^ 
and in a dream her thoughts were moved till she 
became pregnant; after which she swallowed a 
spirit's pearl. Her back opened in due time, and 
she gave birth to Yu in Shih-neu. He had a tiger 
nose and a large mouth. . . . When he grew 
up, he had the virtue of a sage, and was nine cubits 
and six inches long."* The story of his great 
deeds, especially in draining off the waters of the 
inundation, is evidently mythical. One is reminded, 

* Translation of the Annals of the Bamboo Books, in Dr. 
Legge's Chin. Classics, vol. iii. part i, p. 117. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 137 

in reading it, of the labors of Hercules. So with 
his predecessors just named. Their births were as 
marvelous as that of Yu. Things are related of 
some of them which suggest a suspicion that they 
are confused traditions of events described in the 
Mosaic records. What more plausible supposition 
than that the inventor of the famous cycle of sixty, 
Nau (or Nao) the Great is no other than the Jew- 
ish patriarch himself, with but the slightest change 
or corruption of the name? One certainly can not 
but be surprised that such a writer as Pauthier 
should say, as before quoted, " Chinese history pos- 
sesses all the characters of certitude which historic 
criticism has a right to demand." (Vol. ii. p. 33.) 

And here the question naturally arises, whether 
the Chinese historians had the materials for writing 
authentic annals of the early ages of that country. 
The most valued of the Chinese classics, as already 
intimated, is the Shu-king, or Book of Records, 
of which Confucius is the reputed author or com- 
piler (born B. C. 549). It is a series of dialogues 
designed to give a brief history of China from the 
time of Yaou down to Ping Wang, of the Chan dy- 
nasty, B. C. 770. " Th'e internal evidence," says 
WilHams (Mid. King. i. p. 504), "leads to the 
conclusion that Confucius acted principally as editor 
of documents existing in his day ; but the changes 



138 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

that this ancient work underwent in his hands can 
not now be ascertained." One of his commentators 
gives the following description of the manner in 
which he used his materials : — 

" He examined and arranged the grand monu- 
ments and records, deciding to commence with 
Yaou and Shun, and to come down to the times of 
Chan. When there was perplexit}^ and confusion 
he removed them. Expressions frothy and unallow- 
able he cut away. What embraced great principles 
he retained and developed. What were more mi- 
nute, and yet of importance, he carefully selected. 
Of those deserving to be handed down to other 
ages, and to supply permanent lessons, he made in 
all one hundred booksj consisting of canons, coun- 
sels, instructions, announcements, speeches, and 
charges."* 

How much, therefore, in this venerable work are 
the genuine remains of remote antiquity, and how 
much originated with the compiler, we can not know. 
That the materials which came to his hand were 
more or less modified by him, is apparent. The 
whole cast of the work shows its author to have 
been more of a philosopher than historian. In read- 
ing these fragments in their translation, one can 
not but exclaim, How very different from the writ- 

* Chin. Classics, vol. iii. prol. p. 4. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I39 

ings of Herodotus, who wrote at nearly the same 
time ! 

There is another fact of some importance. What- 
ever the Shu-king may have been originally, as to 
faithfully transmitting the early history and chro- 
nology of that nation, we now have that work only 
in mutilated form ; and the mutilation is so exten- 
sive, and of such a character, as seriously to impair 
its authority in every particular. All readers of 
Chinese history are familiar with the burning of the 
books by the Emperor Chi Hoang-ti, B. C. 213, 
famed also as being the builder of the Great 
Wall : — 

" The vanity of this monarch led him to endeavor to 
destroy all records written anterior to his own reign, that 
he might be by posterity regarded as the first emperor of 
the Chinese race. Orders were issued that every book 
should be burned, and especially the writings of Confu- 
cius and Mencius upon the feudal states of Chan, whose 
remembrance he wished to blot out. This strange com- 
mand was executed to such an extent that many of the 
Chinese literati believe that not a perfect copy of the clas- 
sical works escaped destruction, and the texts were only 
recovered by rewriting them from the memories of old 
scholars — a mode of reproduction that does not appear 
so singular to a Chinese as it does to us. . . . The 
destruction was, no doubt, as nearly complete as possible ; 
and not only were many works entirely destroyed, but a 



140 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

shade of doubt thereby thrown over the accuracy of others, 
and the records of the ancient dynasties rendered suspi- 
cious as well as incomplete. Not only were the books 
sought after to be destroyed, but nearly five hundred 
literati were buried alive, in order that no one might 
remain to reproach, in their writings, the first emperor 
with having committed so barbarous and insane an 
act." * 

As to the mode in which the Shu-king was recov- 
ered, accounts somewhat differ. One story is, that 
about thirty-seven years after the burning, some 
twenty-eight or twenty-nine chapters were partially 
restored from the memory of Fuh-Shang, a man 
then ninety years old. When the Ch'aou Ts'o, or 
imperial messenger, went to him, Fuh-Shang, being 
so aged, was unable to speak plainly, and made use 
of a daughter to repeat what he said ; and her dia- 
lect being different from Ts'o's, he lost two or three 
in every ten words, supplying them, as he best 
could, according to his conception of the meaning. 
This account, as being more marvelous, has be- 
come the accepted history of the manner in which 
so many books of the Shu were recovered. 

Another story relates that, when the orders were 
issued for the destruction of the books, the old man 
hid his copy in a wall. During the struggle that 

* Williams's Mid. Kingdom, vol. ii. pp. 212, 213. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I4T 

ensued, he was a fugitive in various parts ; but when 
the rule of the Han was estabHshed, he went to look 
for his treasure, but many of the tablets had per- 
ished. He recovered only twenty-nine of the books. 
Forthwith he commenced teaching, making these 
the basis of his instructions, and from all parts of 
Shan-tung scholars resorted to him, and sat at his 
feet. 

In all this time no copy had reached the court. 
The Emperor Wan (B. C. 178-156), after ineffec- 
tual attempts to find some scholar who could repro- 
duce it, heard at last of Fuh-Shang, and sent to call 
him. Fuh was then more than ninety years old, 
and could not travel, and an officer, called Ch'aou 
Ts'b was sent to receive from him what he had of 
the Shu. These books appear to have been tran- 
scribed in the new form of character introduced 
under the Tsin dynasty, as they were designated 
ever after " the modern text." 

About forty years later, i. e., seventy-three after 
the burning, another mutilated copy of the Shu was 
discovered in the ruined house of Confucius, by one 
of his descendants. In this copy were found the 
twenty-nine books already recovered, and some 
twenty-five or thirty more, making in all fifty-eight 
of the one hundred of which the work originally 
consisted. 



142 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

We come, then, to the conclusion that there is 
nothing in the literature or antiquities of China which 
contravenes or is inconsistent with the Mosaic his- 
tory. Its "most venerable classics, even conceding 
their genuineness in their present form, afford us no 
reliable chronology prior to the Chan dynasty 
(B. C. 1 121). Their highest historical date, from 
whicli the cycle of sixty is reputed to be reckoned, 
is B. C. 2637, which is more than five hundred 
years subsequent to the flood of Noah, according to 
the Septuagint chronology. Fuh-hi himself lived 
only B. C. 2852. (Williams.) We have shown, 
besides, that exactness of dates in that earlier period 
can not be affirmed, since neither the Chinese cal- 
endar nor the cycle of sixty, which are' professedly 
" the elements of Chinese chronology," can be relied 
on as accurate. 

Dr. Legge's conclusion on this subject is as fol^ 
lows : " The accession of Yu, the first sovereign of 
the nation, was probably at some time in the nine- 
teenth century before Christ ; and previous to him 
there were the chiefs Shun and Yaou. Twenty 
centuries before our era, the Chinese nation appears 
beginning to be. To attempt to carry its early his- 
tory to a higher antiquity is without any historical 
justification. There may have been such person- 
ages as Chinese writers talk of under the appella- 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 43 

tions of Chiuen-hiuh, Hoang-ti, Shinnung, Fuh-hi, 
etc., but they can not have been rulers of China. 
They are children of the mist of tradition, if we 
should not rather place them in the land of phan- 
tasy." 



144 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM ETHNOLOGY. 

Descent of all known Nations from Noah. — The Tenth Chapter 
of Genesis. — Importance of this Statement. — The Posterity 
of Shem ; of Japheth ; of Ham. — Agreement of this Account 
with History. — The so-called Aboriginal Races. — Scripture 
Language not to be pressed too literally. — Earlier and later 
Departures from the original Seats of Population. — Opinion 
of Rawlinson. — Alleged Aborigines of Egypt; of India; of 
Western Europe. 

In the preceding chapters we have shown at 
length that there is nothing in the known history or 
antiquities of the most ancient nations that is incon- 
sistent with the Mosaic records. No authentic date 
goes back so far as the Noachian deluge ; no event 
of which any memorial has been preserved in writ- 
ten annals or monumental inscriptions can be as- 
signed to a period so remote. 

We are now prepared to show, on the other hand, 
that all human history, so far as it speaks on the 
subject, confirms those sacred records. It testifies 



THE HUMAN RACE. I45 

both that all the nations of the earth whose history is 
known, or can be traced back to their origin, are 
descended from the family of Noah, and that this 
has taken place since the period at which, according 
to the Septuagint chronology, he and his sons went 
forth from the ark to be the new heads of the human 
race. At the same time it may be shown that there 
is nothing in the condition or known facts of any 
nation inconsistent with the same origin. In other 
words, it may be proved beyond reasonable doubt, 
from the traces which man himself has left in the 
world, that all the known races and families which 
have peopled the earth sprung from a common 
source, on the continent of Asia, at a period not 
exceeding 5000 years ago, while there is no evidence 
as to any other race or people that is not reconcilable 
with that conclusion. 

The Scripture account of the origin and descent 
of the various nations of men is given in the tenth 
chapter of Genesis. This chapter has always been 
considered a document of great interest to students 
of ethnology, and that, too, to whatever school of 
biblical interpretation they may belong, whether 
they accept or reject the Mosaic authorship of the 
Pentateuch, whether they assign the date of its com- 
position to the reputed time of Moses, or a thousand 
years later. This is justly due to its subject-matter, 
10 



146 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

and the place it occupies in the sacred narrative. 
It occurs just at that point where; the account ceases 
to be general, and is thenceforth devoted more espe- 
cially to a single branch of the human family. The 
first five chapters are occupied with the creation and 
the history of the antediluvian generations, the next 
three to the deluge, the ninth to the new laws and 
instructions given to Noah as the second founder of 
the race, and to the birth and conduct of his sons. 
Then follows, in the tenth chapter, a more detailed 
account of " the generations of the sons of Noah," 
giving the descendants of each, in some instances, to 
the third or fourth generation, and, in other cases, 
pointing out the geographical localities occupied by 
particular families. 

This account is as follows, beginning with Shem, 
who was probably the oldest of the three sons : — 

I. "The children of Shem, Elam, and Asshur, 
and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram." (Ver. 22.) 

Elam was the father of the Elaniites\ who dwelt 
around the northern shore of the Persian Gulf, in the 
province of Susiana, a part of ancient Babylonia. 

Asshur is identical with the Assyrians in the 
upper valleys of the Tigris. After the Cushite 
invasion under Nimrod, this became a great 
Shemitic monarchy, whose capital, Nineveh, was 
one of the most splendid cities of ancient times. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I47 

Arphaxad, the eldest son of Shem, born two 
years after the flood, is beHeved to have settled the 
southern part of the Armenian highlands, near the 
sources of the Tigris. He was the ancestor of the 
Hebrews, so named from Eber, his grandson. 
Through Joktan, one of the sons of Eber, he is also 
the ancestor of numerous tribes of Semitic Arabs, 
the heads of whose families are given in ver. 26-30, 
and whose abode was " from Mesha as thou goest 
unto Sephar, a mount of the east," the modern 
Zafari or Dhafar, in the southern part of the Ara- 
bian peninsula. 

Lud was the progenitor of the Lydians, in Asia 
Minor. 

Aram^ from a word signifying high^ was the 
ancestor of the people occupying the highlands of 
Syria, and spreading thence into the vast plains of 
Mesopotamia. One of his sons, Uz, seems to have 
given his name to a district in the latter region, dis- 
tinguished as the residence of the patriarch Job. 

2. The second son of Noah was Japheth, a 
name signifying " enlargement," and denoting the 
wide extent of country which was to be occupied 
by his descendants. It is intimated, also, that this ■ 
was to be the dominant race among the families of 
mankind (chap. ix. 27), both of which predictions 
have been signally verified in their subsequent his- 
tory. 



148 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

"The sons of Japheth : Gomer, and Magog, and 
Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and 
Tiras." (Ver. 2.) 

Gomer is regarded as the founder of the tribes 
which first settled on the shores of the Black Sea, 
and from thence, under the names of Cimmerians^ 
Cimbri^ or Kymry^ ultimately spread throughout 
Northern Europe. His sons were Ashkenaz, Ri- 
phath, and Togarmah. The first is supposed by 
some to have given its name to Asia ; * others 
regard it as equivalent to the Gothic As-chtmis, the 
race of Ases, representing " the Germanic and Scan- 
dinavian nations not yet separated, and inhabiting a 
limited district to the north-east of the Black Sea." f 
Riphath is " the group of Celts, or Gauls, then es- 
tablished in their first European settlements on the 
Rifhcean Mountains, — the present Carpathians, 
— before- entering on their last migration toward 
the France of our days." % Togarmah is univer- 
sally regarded as Armenia. 

Magog was the progenitor of an extensive race 
of wild people, north of the Caucasus, called by the 
Greeks Scythians. The ultimate subdivisions of this 
race, and their migrations in Europe and Asia, are 
little known. Many suppose them to constitute 

* Philip Smith's Hist, of the World, p. 41. 

t Anc. Hist, of the East, vol. ii p. 6i. % Ibid. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 49 

what is called the Turanian races, including the 
Hungarians and Sarmatians of the west, the Turks, 
Finns, Tatars of the north, and the original tribes 
of Central and Southern India on the south. 

Madai represents the MedeSy or the great Ira- 
nian family of Persia. 

. yavan was the father of the lonians and Greeks. 
Of his four sons, Elishah is supposed to be the same 
as Hellas ; Tarshish is thought to be Tartessus, in 
Spain, or, as others suggest, " the Tyrrhenian Pe- 
lasgians, who formed the primitive population of a 
great part of Italy ; * Kittim, the inhabitants of 
Cyprus, where was the ancient town of Citium ; 
and Dodanim, the Dardanians of Asia Minor, or 
the Epirotes, among whom was the famous town 
and oracle of Do dona. 

Tubal is identified with the Tibareni of Pontus.* 

Meshech is probably the Moschi mentioned by 
Herodotus, as living in the same vicinity. 

Tiras was the ancestor of the Thracians. 

3. Ham was the youngest son of Noah. (Chap, 
ix. 24.) The word means ^' black," or "sun- 
burned," and is especially applicable to the dark- 
skinned families of mankind, although individuals 
of other families, living in hot countries, acquire 
also dark complexions. 

* Anc. Hist, of the East, -vol. ii, p. 61. 



150 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

" The sons of Ham : Cush, and Mizraim, and 
Phut, and Canaan." (Ver. 6.) 

Cush was the ancestor of the Ethiopians. His 
eldest son, Seba, gave his name to the capital of the 
ancient kingdom of Meroe, and perhaps to the 
Sabeans, who dwelt partly in Arabia and partly in 
Abyssinia. His remaining sons, Havilah, Sabtah, 
Raamah, and Sabtechah, occupied the Arabian 
peninsula, and regions adjacent. From some one 
of these was descended Nimrod, the founder of the 
Babylonian empire, embracing the cities of Babel, 
Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar, 
and possibly also the Assyrian kingdom, including 
the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth, Caleb, and 
Resen.* Traces of this dynasty are seen in the 
names Cuthah, Cossaei, Chuzistan (Susiana), as 
also in the Hindu Koosh, the name still borne by 
the mountain regions of the Upper Indus. 

Mizraim^ a word in the dual form, meaning 
the two Egypts, i. e., the Upper and Lower. 
The Arabs still apply the name Misr both to the 
country itself and to its capital. The Ludim, 

* The reading of Gen. x. 11, now generally preferred, is, " Out 
of that land he (i. e., Cush) went into Assyria." But it is not 
certain that the authorized version is not correct, Asshur, the 
son of Shem, may have been driven from the country before by 
this fierce Cushite invader, and founded the more northern rnon- 
archy called fi'om him Assyria. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I5I 

Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, and 
Caphtorim are not personal names, but the appel- 
lations of tribes descended from Mizraim, which 
settled the country west of Egypt, the Delta, the 
maritime coast of Philistia, and perhaps Crete, 
and some of the neighboring islands. The Caph- 
torim may have given their name to the Copts, 
which, in turn, originated the Greek designation of 
the country, viz., Ai-guftos, Egypt, the land of the 
Copt. 

Phut was probably the ancestor of the Libyans, 
inhabiting the country lying west of Egypt, along 
the northern shore of Africa. 

Canaan was the father of the tribes which origi- 
nally occupied Palestine, and which for the most 
part were exterminated by the Hebrews after their 
exodus from Egypt. 

Such is a concise view of the origin and affinities 
of the various nations of mankind, as given in the 
Scriptures. That it is in entire harmony with secu- 
lar history, so far as the latter is known, is evident 
to all intelligent readers. Now, this general fact, 
even if we can go no further, is very remarkable. 
We need not suggest how utterly unlike this in- 
spired genealogy is to those which are found in the 
literature of any other people. Confessedly one 
of the oldest documents in the world, written in an 



152 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

age when as yet historical science had not begun to 
be, it maps out the existing families of mankind, and 
the localities they occupied, so minutely and accu- 
rately that the very latest investigations of modern 
science, with all the helps which have accumulated 
through thousands of years, serve only to verify and 
illustrate it. The very names contained in these 
patriarchal lists, entering into the numerous and 
intermingling channels of history, and floating down 
through the most diverse languages and dialec.ts, are 
still, for the most part, recognizable as the distinc- 
tive appellations of the leading nationalities and peo- 
ples of this day. We know not how to resist the 
demonstration thus afforded both of the unity of all 
the known branches of the human race, and their 
origin at a date no more remote than the family of 
Noah. 

But there are, or have been, nations and tribes of 
men whose descent from Noah can not be traced 
through any line of actual history. When his 
descendants migrated from the primitive seats in 
which, after the flood, they settled, to the countries 
which were to be their future homes, they found 
everywhere, it is said, aboriginal races already 
occupants of the soil. " We have," says Agassiz, 
" nowhere a positive record of a people having 
migrated far, and found countries entirely destitute 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 53 

of inhabitants." * These aboriginal races, often 
designated the pre-historic, but whom I would rather 
name the un-historic nations, prove, it is claimed, 
" the primitive ubiquity of mankind upon earth," and 
refute both the unity and the recent origin of the 
human family. 

We think this statement, as is usual with objec- 
tions of this kind, exaggerated. We know of no 
evidence to show the fact so universal as is alleged. 
Where is the " positive record of a people having 
migrated far," and not having " found countries 
entirely destitute of inhabitants"? The Pelasgians 
claimed to have been autochthons in Greece, 
though certainly having emigrated from Asia. We 
have never seen any evidence, or even allegation, 
that the ancient Egyptians did not consider them- 
selves autochthons in the valley of the Nile. But 
without insisting on this, we may freely concede the 
reality of these so called aboriginal races without 
any detriment to the authority of the sacred record. 

For, first, Scripture language in general state- 
ments is not always to be pressed to a rigidly literal 
meaning. Such a general statement is that of Gen. 
ix. 19 : " These are the three sons of Noah, and of 
them was the whole earth overspread." This may 
be taken literally, as, until recently, has always 

* Christian Examiner, March, 1850. 



154' ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

been done, or its application may be limited to the 
" Adamite race," whose creation had just been re- 
corded, and whose history is given in the subsequent 
portions of the sacred writings, without either affirm- 
ing or denying the existence of another race not 
descended from Adam. The latter interpretation, 
though less obvious than the former, is certainly 
consistent with usage in other parts of the Bible. For 
example, the statement in Luke ii. i, that "there 
went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the 
world should be taxed." Also, Matt. iii. 5, that 
there " went out to him [John] Jerusalem and all 
Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan." 
These statements are certainly to be understood in a 
sense more restricted than the literal one. Numer- 
ous other passages of a similar kind might be cited. 
Such being the case, the truthfulness of the Mosaic 
account, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, would not 
necessarily be impaired should it be proved that 
there has existed a race or races of men descended 
neither from Noah nor Adam. There are distin- 
guished scholars who maintain the polygenetic origin 
of mankind, and endeavor to prove it from the Bible, 
believing that such an interpretation is consistent 
with the truthfulness of the sacred narrative.* 

But without resorting to this possible view of the 

* Page 170. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 55 

matter, — one in which I must, by no means, be 
understood to concur, — it is sufficient to say that if 
history does not, in the case of these nations now 
under consideration, establish their descent from 
Noah, neither, on the other hand, does it disprove 
it. The argument is at best a negative one, and 
determines nothing. If the Scripture narrative 
lacks confirmation as respects them, it is because 
there are no sufficient historical data in the case. 
At the same time these facts create a strong -proba- 
hility in favor of including these nations within the 
comprehension of the sacred record. If this be 
found to be literally true as respects all the nations 
whose history is known, the presumption is irresisti- 
ble that it must be true respecting those whose his'- 
tory is unknown. 

There is still another view which I deem more 
satisfactory ; indeed, I see not why it does not meet 
all the exigencies of the case. It is conceded by all 
that the ancestors of the Semitic and Indo-European 
races remained together in their primitive seats 
longer than did those of the Turanian families ; and 
some of the greatest scholars in comparative phi- 
lology explain the diversity of language between 
these races by the supposition of an earlier depart- 
ure of fhe latter from those seats. It has, indeed, 
been the common opinion that the whole race re- 



156 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

mained together in the region around Babylon till 
the confounding of their language, as described in 
the eleventh chapter of Genesis ; and this, certainly, 
is the most obvious import of the record. But as I 
have already said, such is the use of general, com- 
prehensive terms in the Bible, that there is nothing 
to forbid the idea of repeated earlier separations of 
colonies from the primitive seat, and their migration 
to different parts of the earth. The following ex- 
tract gives the views of one of the most accom- 
plished ethnographers, Sir Henry Rawlinson, on 
this point : — 

" It must have been during this interval," referring to 
what he denominates the " Ante-Semitic Period," " that 
the nationalities must have been established, and that the 
original Scyths or Hamites appear to have been the prin- 
cipal movers in this great work of social organization. 
They would seem, indeed, simultaneously or progressively 
to have passed, in one direction, by Southern Persia into 
India ; in another, through Southern Arabia to Ethiopia, 
Egypt, and Numidia. They must have spread themselves, 
at the same time, over Syria and Asia Minor, sending out 
colonies from one country to Mauritania, Sicily, and 
Iberia ; from the other, to the southern coasts of Greece 
and Italy. They further, probably, occupied the whole 
area of modern Persia, and, thence proceeding to the 
north of Chalcis and the Caucasus, they penetrated to the 
extreme northern point of the European and Asiatic con- 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 57 

tinents. It is well known to ethnographers that the pas- 
sage of the Scyths is to be traced along these lines either 
by direct historical tradition or by the cognate dialects 
spoken by their descendants at the present day ; and it is 
further pleasing to remark, that if we were to be guided 
by the mere linguistic paths, afid independently of all 
reference to the scriptural record, we should still be led 
to fix upon the plains of Shinar as the focus from which 
the various lines had radiated. 

" When I propose to class the multitude of nations here 
indicated in a common category, I do not pretend that a 
connection can be established between them by direct his- 
torical evidence, or by any positive test of philology. All 
that I maintain is, that certain special ethnic names have 
everywhere prevailed amongst them, and that either from 
ancient monuments, or from tradition, or from the dialects 
now spoken by their descendants, we are authorized to 
infer that, at some very remote period before the rise of 
the Semitic and Aryan nations, a great Scythic population 
must have overspread Europe^ Asia, and Africa, speak- 
ing languages all more or less dissimilar in their vocabu- 
lary, but possessing similarity in certain common organic 
characteristics of grammar and construction." * 

I have quoted this opinion of Rawlinson — which 
more strictly belongs t^ the argument from Phi- 
lology — because it so clearly enunciates the fact of 

* Notes on the early history of the Babylonians. — Journal 
Roy. Asiatic See, vol. xv. p. 232. 



158 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

an earlier immigration from the primitive seats of the 
race, than that which originated the nations of his- 
tory, which fact, as it seems to me, is sufficient to 
account for the existence of the un-historic nations, 
without resorting, to the supposition that they be- 
longed to a pre-Adamite or a non- Adamite race. 

But let us consider these so-called pre-historic races 
more in detail. Those of most importance are the 
alleged aborigines of Egypt, of India, and of West- 
ern Europe.* 

I have already, in Chapter II., shown at length 
the entire want of evidence that any such primeval 
race ever occupied the valley of the Nile, or that 
Menes, the reputed founder of the nation, lived at a 
period at all inconsistent with the chronology of 
Moses, according to the Septuagint. Doubtless 
Egypt was one of the earliest nations, dating back, 
according to the best authority we have, — that of 
Eratosthenes, — as far as the 27th or 28th century 
B. C.f But this will allow some four or five hun- 
dred years after the flood in which that earliest 
Hamitic emigration from the first abode of Noah's 
family to the Nile valley may have taken place — a 

* Mr. J. D. Baldwin makes these three cases corner-stones of 
his theory, which would attribute to the human race an antiquity 
of some 10,000 or 20,000 years. See his " Pre-historic Nations." 

t Ante, p. 77. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I59 

period amply sufficient to meet all the exigencies of 
the case. 

While there is, therefore, no proof of an alleged 
pre-historic people and civilization in Egypt, there is, 
on the other hand, much evidence confirmatory of 
the Mosaic account of the origin of that nation in 
the family of Ham. 

We have, first, its name. This, in the language 
of its earliest inhabitants, was Ham, written in the 
hieroglyphics Kem, and in Coptic variously Chame, 
Chemt, and Cheme.^ The word even was applied 
to the soil itself, and thus, from its rich, dark color, 
came to signify "black," or rather "sunburned." 
Among the Hebrews, the name of the country was 
MiSRAiM, the dual form of which seems to have 
denoted the two provinces of Upper and Lower 
Egypt — equivalent to the " two Egypts." This 
name is retained by the Arabs at the present day, 
who call the country Misr. 

Traces of the names of the sub-families are also 
found in Egypt and the vicinity. " The Ludim 
were the true and dominant Egyptian race, called, 
in their language. Rut, or Lut, i. e., 'men' par 
excellence. Next, the Pathrusim, or 'people of the 
southefn country,' that is, of the Thebaid, in Egyp- 
tian, P-TO-RES. The Naphtuhim, or people of 
Memphis, the sacerdotal name of which was Na 



l6o ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Phtah (the 'Part of Phtah'), and lastly, the Ana- 
mim, the Anu of the Egyptian monuments, who 
seem originally to have been dispersed throughout 
the whole Nile valley, and who have left traces of 
their name in the cities of Heliopolis (in Egyptian, 
An), Tentyris or Denderah (also sonietimes called 
An), and Hermonthis (An-res, Southern An).' A 
branch of this race maintained, for a long time, a 
separate existence in a part of the Sinaitic penin- 
sula." * The Caphtorim, from whom were de- 
scended the Philistines,! are believed to have origi- 
nated the name Coptos, as applied to the district or 
nome which they first settled, which, in its turn, 
suggested the Greek designation now borne by the 
entire country, viz., Ai-guftos^ Egypt, i. e., the land 
of Copt. The Casluhim are supposed to have been 
the aborigines of Casiotis, a region lying on the bor- 
ders of Egypt, toward Arabia Petraea, where is the 
modern town of El-kas. The Lehabim were un- 
doubtedly the Libyans, who dwelt in the country 
west of Egypt, stretching across the desert to the 
Adantic. 

Second, The physical characteristics and language 

* Anci Hist, of the East, Lenormant, p. 202. 

t In Gen. x. 14, they are said to have proceeded from the Cas- 
luhim. But this is probably an error, the clause having been 
transposed from Caphtorim. Compare Jer. xlvii. 4, Amos ix. 7. 



THE HUMAN RACE. l6l 

of the people. The " Coptic skull and facial outline " 
are of" the Caucasian type." " We may allow, too, 
for considerable admixture with the cognate races 
to the south and east ; and hence, on the one hand, 
the fullness of lips, and, on the other, the elongated 
Nubian eye, need not compel us to define the inhab- 
itants of the Nile valley as an African rather than 
an Asiatic race. The Egyptians may be said to be 
intermediate between the Syro-Arabian and the 
Ethiopic type." * 

Osburn is still more emphatic in expressing the 
same opinion. " There is yet another historic trait 
whereby this most ancient of languages and of 
modes of writing discourses of its origin. A large 
class of words in it are Semitic, or (to drop the 
terminology of a system which modern discovery 
has shown to be erroneous) are identical with 
the Hebrew of the Bible. The personal pronoun, 
the numerals, as well as many names and verbs, 
expressing actions or objects of very comrnon occur- 
rence, were the same in the Hebrew and Egyptian 
languages. . . . The words of the ancient 
Egyptian language, derived from the Hebrew, seem 
to be those which are of the very essence of human 
intercommunication. Such are pronouns, numerals, 
appellations for heat, cold, sitting, standing, moving, 

* Smith's Diet, of Geog., art. ^gyptus. 
II 



1 62 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

dividing, etc., etc. We believe tliere exists, either 
in the Coptic or hieroglyphic texts, words identical 
with the Hebrew for these and other objects and 
ideas, all of which, so far as we can collect, are of 
this primitive and essential character in the structure 
of speech. Without them, it would be impossible 
for human beings to interchange thoughts or hold 
communication by speech at all." * 

The testimony of the monuments is to the same 
effect, proving that the first settlement of the coun- 
try was in Lower Egypt, precisely where the theory 
of an Asiatic origin would place it. Mr. Osburn 
shows this at length, quoting also the opinions of 
that eminent scholar Lepsius, that " the antiquity of 
Egyptian monuments, considered in relation to the 
larger masses ^f their remains, becomes less remote 
the higher we ascend the valley, in direct opposi- 
tion to that which might have been anticipated 
according to the very eminently received theory, 
which assumes that the Egyptian civilization in the 
valley of the Nile originated in the south, and 
extended itself northward." He then continues, 
" Thus are we able to indicate, with absolute cer- 
tainty, the point in the valley of the Nile in which 
are found the monuments of the remotest antiquity, 
and therefore, by the unerring analogy of the cus- 

* Monumental History of Egypt, vol, i. pp. 209, 210. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 63 

toms of all ancient nations, the spot in which the 
first settlement in Egypt took place. Everything, 
both to the northward and southward of this point, 
is more modern. It will also be seen, by a refer- 
ence to the map, that this point lies exactly parallel to 
the Isthmus of Suez, and is precisely the place at 
which immigrants over that thoroughfare between 
Asia and Africa, would first find a locality suited to 
their purpose, after traversing the sands of the des- 
ert, and attempting in vain to penetrate the swamps 
of the Delta." 

The second of the supposed pre-historic nations, 
which, it is thought, could not have been of the 
Noachian family, are the aborigines of India. The 
Sanskrit, as is well known, belongs to the Aryan, 
or, as it is sometimes called, the Japetic family of 
languages, and is a sufficient proof that the people 
of India, who spoke that tongue, were of the Japetic 
stock. But it is claimed that when the Aryans came 
into India, they found there a primitive people of 
another race. Mr. Baldwin regards these as Cush- 
ites from Arabia, who were themselves preceded by 
a nation of Malays. He speaks of the " Cyclopean 
works of the Cushites " as found in the rock-cut tem- 
ples, pagodas, etc., which Orientalists have gen- 
erally regarded as not antedating the time of 
Buddha, say from five to six centuries B. C. 



164 ANTIQiJITY AND UNITY OF 

Now, we fully admit that the earliest writings of 
the Sanskrit-speaking people afford evidence that 
when that people reached the Punjaiib, in Northern 
India, they found the country already occupied by 
inhabitants ; but the same writings also as clearly 
seem to intimate that these were not a distinct race 
from the new comers. This evidence may be 
regarded as conclusive, at least in reference to those 
tribes called in the Vedas and elsewhere Dasyas* 
and, in fact, all the original tribes of Northern India. 
This is shown, at some length, by Muir, in his 
" Sanskrit Texts," one of the most valuable works 
we have on Indian archaeology. f He says, in con- 
clusion, " I have gone over the names of the Das- 
yas, or Asuras, mentioned in the Rig- Veda, with 
the view of discovering whether any of them would 
be regarded as of non-Aryan or indigenous origin, 
but I have not observed any that appear to be of 
this character." % He also quotes Professors Miiller 

* This, and not Dasju (sing.), as Muir writes it, is the proper 
orthography, according to the usual way of Anglicizing Sanskrit 
words. The vowel in the last syllable is the same as in the first, 
viz., short a, pronounced like u in but — Dasya. 

t Original Sanskrit Texts, on the Origin and Progress of the 
Religion and Institutions of India, Part I. a;nd History of the 
People of India, their Religion and Institutions, Part II. By J. 
Muir, Esq., D. C. L., late of the Bengal civil service. London, 
1858 and i860. X Ibid p. 403. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 165 

and Lassen, to the same effect. " Dasyu simply 
means enemy ; for instance, where Indra is praised 
^becalise he destroyed the Dasyus, and protected the 
Aryan Color.' The Dasyus, in the Veda, may 
mean non-Aryan races in many hymns, yet the 
mere fact of tribes being called the enemies of cer- 
tain kings or priests can hardly be said to prove 
their barbarian origin." * " Though in individual 
passages of the Mahabharata hatred and contempt 
are expressed in reference to the tribes living on 
the Indus and its live great tributaries, yet there 
is no trace of these tribes being ever regarded as 
of non-Indian origin. That there was no essential 
difference in their language is proved, as regards 
a later period, by the testimony of Panini."f 

It is more probable that the primitive inhabitants 
of Southern India were of a non-Aryan stock, 
though I do not regard it as proved. Muir sup- 
poses them to have been allied to the Finnish or 
Tatar races, and Baldwin, as we have seen,, to 
the Cushites. But in reality the question, both as 
it relates to them and to the more northern 
tribes, is of little comparative importance in the 
present discussion. It may be conceded that 
neither were Aryans without any danger of im- 

* Moller, "Last Results of the Turanian Researches," p. 344. 
t Lassen, Zeitsch. fur die Kunde des Morgenl, iii. 206. 



1 66 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

pugning their descent from Noah. All the data 
we have from the Sanskrit, or elsewhere, show that 
the Aryans did not arrive in the upper valleys of 
the Indus and the Ganges much before the 13th 
century before Christ. Professor Miiller, indeed, 
places it as early as the 15th century.* Even if we 
take this date, we have a period of some 1600 or 
1700 years between it and the deluge, according to 
the Septuagint chronology, — a period amply suffi- 
cient to admit of repeated migrations from the original 
seats of the race. It is perfectly consistent with all 
the known facts respecting the original inhabitants 
of India, to assume that six, eight, or ten centuries 
after the deluge, straggling colonies of unlettered 
men wandered from their primitive home into this 
country, where they were found b/ the lettered Ar- 
yans perhaps as many centuries later. The suppo- 
sition meets every exigency of the case, without 
resorting to the theory of a non- Adamite race, or a 
condition of human population at all inconsistent 
with the Bible chronology. 

The remaining nations, termed pre-historic, which 
are claimed to have had an antiquity exceeding that 
of the deluge, are those whose remains are found 
in Europe, in association with the bones of antedilu- 
vian animals, accompanied by rude implements of 
* Last Results, etc., p. 432. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 67 

flint and stone ; also in ancient peat-beds, and at the 
bottom of various lakes. The character and proba- 
ble origin of these remains will be considered at 
length in a subsequent chapter.* 

It will be sufficient here to observe that the fact 
that all historical traces of these people are lost, — 
in other words, that they are pre-historic, — is, in the 
circumstances, no proof of a remote antiquity. His- 
toric times in France, Germany, and Britain go but 
a little way back of Julius Caesar. Even if we carry 
them as far as to the founding of Rome, B. C. 753, 
we have left a period of some twenty-five hundred 
years subsequent to the flood — a period amply suffi- 
cient f(3r the rise, decay, and extinction of numerous 
nations, without having left even a name to indicate 
their origin or affinities. 

It will be shown further that the most diligent ex- 
plorers into the subject of these ancient remains are 
clearly of opinion that the people to whom they 
belonged were of Celtic origin, a branch of the great 
Aryan or Indo-European family, which confessedly 
were among the latest to leave the primeval seats of 
emigration in Asia. 

The conclusion, then, to which Ethnology brings 
us, is in accordance with that derived from her sister 
sciences. So far as she can trace the origin and 
* Infra, p. 320. 



1 68 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

affinities of all, whether historic or unhistoric nations, 
she refers them to Central Asia and the family of 
Noah, and of course brings them into harmony with 
the chronology of that event. Where she can not 
trace that origin, she still leaves all the probabilities 
pointing the same way. She allows ample time, in 
the period since the flood, for all the migrations and 
developments required by the hypothesis of such a 
common descent, and, what is equally significant, 
she affords not one fact, nor even one reasonable 
probability, which is in the least inconsistent with it. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 69 



CHAPTER VIII. 



THE ARGUMENT FROM PHYSIOLOGY. 

Differences in existing Races of Men urged to prove a Plurality 
of Origin. — This Doctrine first advanced by La Peyrere. — 
Espoused by Infidel Writers. — Its supposed Bearings on 

Slavery Agassiz's Theory of Natural Provinces. — And of 

Unity of Species. — Estimate of this Theory. — I. It is a mere 
Theory. — II. No Inconsistency of known Facts with the 
Bible Narrative. — The Case of Cain and his Wife. — The 
Diversities among Races. — i. Man is of a single Species, 
having same Physical and Mental Characteristics. — The 
single Headof the Animal Kingdom. — Intermixture of Races 
futile. — Unity of Species proves Unity of Origin. — 2. Sim- 
ilar Changes now taking place. —3. Similar Changes among 
other Animals. —III. The Theory contrary to Analogy in 
other Departments of Creation. — IV. Opposed by Theologi- 
cal and Moral Science. — Conclusion. 

The preceding chapter was devoted to the argu- 
ment from Ethnology, in what may be denominated 
its historical department. It is necessary, in view 
of objections which have been raised, to consider 
the same subject further under its physiological 
aspect. 



170 ANTIQIJITY AND UNITY OF 

We have argued the recent origin of man on 
earth from the fact that all known nations and fami- 
lies have descended from Noah, and therefore must 
come within the range of the Noachian chronology. 
But, apart from the historical evidence of such 
descent, it is urged, from a study of man as he now 
is, the diversities of his form, size, color, physiog- 
nom}^ etc., that existing races could not have had a 
common origin. It is claimed that this diversity re- 
quires, and that the Scriptures themselves virtually 
warrant, the belief that beside Adam and his de- 
scendants, there has been at least one, perhaps 
several, other original stocks of the human family, 
older than that of Adam ; that the Scripture account 
of the creation does not include these, being designed 
to refer only to that branch to which the Jews, and 
the white races generally, belonged ; and therefore 
that we are at liberty to assign to this elder branch 
or branches any supposable antiquity which modern 
scientific discoveries may require. 

This doctrine of the plurality of the human species 
was first advanced by La Peyrere, a French writer, 
in a work published in 1655. The ground on which 
he professed to base it was the Bible itself, which, 
he maintained, gave clear intimations of a non- 
Adamite race. The principal passage he adduced 
in support of this theory was that which speaks of 



THE HUMAN RACE. I7I 

Cain, after he received sentence for his crime, going 
out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelHng in 
the land of Nod, marrying a wife there, and build- 
ing a city. (Gen. iv. 16, 17.) In the preceding 
verses, also, when complaining of his sentence, he 
says, " I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the 
earth, and it shall come to pass that every one that 
findeth me shall slay me ; " in consequence of which 
"the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding 
him should kill him." La Peyrere argued from these 
passages that there were, at that time, other men 
beside the family of Adam, which then consisted 
of only three persons; and that these other men, or 
this other race, must have been previousl}' created. 
They were, he thought, the ancestors of the Gen- 
tiles, while Adam was the ancestor of the Jewish 
race, with whose creation and history the Bible is 
mainly occupied. 

The distinguished writer * fr(3m whom I derive 
this account says that La Peyrere was in no sense 
a free thinker (n'est nullement un libre^ penseur) . 
" He was a theologian, a believer, who admits as 
true all that is in the Bible, and miracles in particu- 
lar. . . . He always finds in the book which 
serves him as a guide some reason to support his 
interpretation. In a word, we find throughout, in 

* Qiiatrefages, Introduction, pp. 7, 8. 



172 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

La Peyrere, a mixture of complete faith and free 
criticism. This book convinced no one, and the 
doctrine of the author soon, fell into forgetfulness, 
until within a few years since it has been repro- 
duced and welcomed with a favor sufficiently' unex- 
pected." 

It is not surprising that a theory so repugnant to 
the general teachings of Christianity should have 
met with favor from the apostles of French infidelity. 
Voltaire and Rousseau reproduced this argument in 
their attempts to shake the authority of the Scrip- 
tures.* But, according to Quatrefages, it was 
reserved for America to bring this doctrine into 
notice, and give it any considerable currency. His 
account of the matter is substantially this : In 1846 
Professor L. Agassiz, in a visit to Charleston, S. C, 
broached the theory of the plurality of origin for the 
human race in the " Literary Conversations Club," 
of that city. The expression of these views aroused 
a decided antagonism in that meeting. The pro- 
f(5sson found two able opponents in the persons of the 
Rev. Drs. Bachman and Smyth, who both spoke 
and wrote in opposition to him. Professor A. pub- 
lished his views in extcnso in the " Christian Exam- 
iner " for March and July, 1850; and afterward, in 
1854. ^'^ ^^ essay entitled " The Natural Provinces 

* Smyth's Unity of the Human Species, p. 163, Eng. ed. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I73 

of the Animal World, and their Relation to the Dif- 
ferent Types of Man," inserted in Nott and Gliddon's 
"Types of Mankind." In 1849 Dr. Nott published 
his work entitled '^ Biblical and Physical History of 
Man," being the substance of two lectures delivered 
by him in New Orleans the previous year. In 1854 
Nott and Gliddon issued the book just mentioned on 
the "• Types of Mankind." 

It was in this manner that the discussion of the 
question as to the unity of the human race was 
renewed, after a silence of two hundred years. The 
agitation of it on this side of the'Atlantic drew atten- 
tion to it on the other, and brought into the field a 
considerable number of able writers, most of whom, 
so far as I am aware, took ground in favor of the 
unity of the race as descended from the family of 
Noah. 

According to Quatrefages, the chief interest of 
the discussion in this country grew out of its sup- 
posed bearings upon the institution of slavery. 
" Thus in America," he says, " the anthropological 
question is complicated with that of slavery ; and 
from reading the greater part of the writings that 
have come to us from beyond the sea, it is clear that 
there th'ey are, before all, advocates or opponents of 
that institution. But in the United States it is ne- 
cessary always to be biblical ; and hence came the 



174 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

particular shades which distinguish certain anthro- 
pological works in that countr}^. The anti-slavists 
are generally outspoken monogenists, and accept 
the dogma of Adam as it is commonly understood. 
Such is, also, professedly the faith of a certain num- 
ber of slavists. These latter, to justify their conduct 
toward their black brethren^ refer to the history of 
Noah and his sons. Ham, say they, was cursed 
by his father, and condemned to be the servant of 
his brethren. The negroes descended from Ham ; 
therefore, in reducing them to slavery, we are obey- 
ing Holy Writ. But America reckons some beside 
slavists who are polygenists. These latter have 
again placed in honor, under different forms and in 
support of modern knowledge, the doctrine of La 
Peyrere, of which otherwise they say but little. All, 
speaking highly of the inspiration of the Old and 
New Testaments, endeavor to demonstrate, by lin- 
guistic, geographical, and historical researches, 
that the biblical accounts relative to the origin and 
affiliation of men apply only to the white races. 
Thus put at ease, they have regarded the different 
groups as so many distinct species." * 

By far the most distinguished of this latter class 
of writers is Professor Agassiz. His opinions I will 
cite at length from the essay before referred to, 

* Qi-i^trefages, p. IJ. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 75 

published in the " Christian Examiner " for July, 
1850. 

" The circumstance that, wherever we find a human 
race naturally circumscribed, it is connected in its limita- 
tion with what we call, in natural history, a zoological 
and botanical province, — that is to say, with a natural 
limitation of a particular association of animals and plants, 
— shows most unequivocally the intimate relation existing 
between mankind and the animal kingdom in their adap- 
tation to the physical world. The Arctic race of men, 
covering the treeless region near the Arctics, in Europe, 
Asia, and America, is circumscribed, in the three conti- 
nents, within limits very similar to those occupied by that 
particular combination of animals which are peculiar to 
the same tracts of land and sea. 

" The region inhabited by the Mongolian race is also 
a natural zoological province, covered by a co4nbination 
of animals naturally circumscribed within the same re- 
gions. The Malay race covers also a natural zoological 
province. New Holland again constitutes a very peculiar 
zoological province, in which we have another particular 
race of men. And it is further remarkable, in this con- 
nection, that the plants and animals now living on the 
continent of Africa, south of the Atlas, within the same 
range within which the Negroes are naturally circum- 
scribed, have a character differing widely from that of the 
plants and animals of the northern shores of Africa and 
the valley of Egypt ; while the Cape of Good Hope, 
within the limits inhabited by Hottentots, is characterized 



176 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

hy a vegetation and a fauna equally peculiar, and differing 
in its features from that over which the African race is 
spre'ad. 

" Such identical circumscriptions between the limits 
of two series of organized beings, so widely differing as 
man, and animals, and plants, and so entirely unconnected 
in point of descent, would, to the mind of a naturalist, 
amount to a demonstration that" they originated together 
within the districts which they now inhabit. We say that 
such an accumulation of evidence would amount to demon- 
stration ; for how could it, on the contrary, be supposed 
that man alone would assume peculiarities and features so 
different from his primitive characteristics, while the ani- 
mals and plants circumscribed within the same limits, 
would continue to preserve their natural relations to the 
fauna and flora of other parts of the world ? 

" If the Creator of one set of these living beings had not 
been also the Creator of the other, and if we did not trace 
the same general laws throughout nature, there might be 
room for the supposition that, while men inhabiting dif- 
ferent parts of tlie world originated from a common center, 
the plants and animals now associated with them in the 
same countries originated on the spot. But such incon- 
sistencies do not occur in the laws of nature. 

^' The coincidences of the geographical distribution of 
the human races with that of animals, the disconnection 
of the climatic conditions where we have similar races, 
and the connection of climatic conditions where we have 
different human races, show, further, that the adaptation 



THE HUMAN RACE. I77 

of the different races of men to different parts of the 
world must be intentional, as well as that of other beings ; 
that men were primitively located in the various parts 
they inhabit ; and that they arose everywhere in those har- 
monious numeric proportions with other living beings, 
which would at once secure their preservation, and con- 
tribute to their welfare. To suppose that all men origi- 
nated from Adam and Eve is to assume that the order 
of creation has been changed in the course of historical 
times, and to give to the Mosaic record a meaning that 
it was never intended to have. On that ground we would 
particularly insist upon the propriety of considering Gen- 
esis as chiefly relating to the history of the white race, 
with special reference to the history of the Jews." 

Notwithstanding that the learned professor thus 
denies the common descent of mankind from Adam 
and Eve, he still insists that the race is but of one 
species. He remarks, — 

*' There are two distinct questions involved in the sub- 
ject which we have under discussion — the Unity of Man- 
kind, and the Diversity of Origin of the Human Races. 
These are two distinct questions, having almost no con- 
nection with each other ; but they are constantly con- 
founded, as if they were but one." * And again, " We 
began by stating that the subject of unity and plurality of 
races involves two distinct questions — the question of the 
essential unity of mankind, and the question of the origin 

♦ Christ. Exam. July, 1850, p. no. 
12 



1 78 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

of men upon our globe. There is another view involved 
in this second question, which we would not dismiss 
without a few remarks. 

" Are men, even if diversity of origin is established, to 
be considered as belonging to one species ? or are we to 
conclude that there are several different species among 
them.? The writer has been in this respect strangely 
misrepresented. Because he has at one time said that 
mankind constitutes one species, and at another time has 
said that men did not originate from one common stock, 
he has been represented as contradicting himself, as stat- 
ing at one time one thing and at another time another. 
He would, therefore, insist upon this distinction — that the 
unity of species does not involve a unity of origin, and 
that a diversity of origin does not involve a plurality of 
species. Moreover, what we should now consider as the 
characteristic of species is something very different from 
what has formerly been so considered. As soon as it 
was ascertained that animals difler so widely, it was found 
that what constitutes a species in certain types is some- 
thing very different from what constitutes a species in 
other types, and that facts which prove an identity of 
species in some animals do not prove an identity or 
plurality in another group." (p. 113.). 

Thus we see this distinguished naturalist holds to 
the doctrine of the unity of mankind, but with this 
he likewise maintains the plurality of origin ; a posi- 
tion which, according to the manner in which cer- 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 79 

tain matters in natural science have heretofore been 
viewed, is a strange one. But some others have 
adopted it ; and they maintain the unity of the human 
races in such a way as to be consistent, in their own 
view, with the declaration of Paul, when he says, 
" He [God] hath made of one blood all nations of 
men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." (Acts 
xvii. 26.) There is the actual relationship of con- 
sanguinity — all are made of one blood, although 
the different races are descended from different, dis- 
tinct, primitive pairs, which were created at different 
times in different parts of the earth. And Prof. Agas- 
siz^is particular to state that he regards all the r aces , 
though descended from differen^_prirneval pairs, as 
having the same relations to the moral government 
of God, as constituting, spiritually and intellectually, 
one broth erhood, and_^as^ having one destiny. He 
claims, moreover, that all this is consistent with the 
sacred Scriptures, and feels it keenly that he has 
been represented as holding doctrines at variance 
with the teachings of the Bible. 

Let us now inquire what estimate should be placed 
upon the theory thus set forth. 

I. In the first place, let it be remembered that it 
is a mere theory. No one, so far as we know, has 
attempted to frove it, or even claimed that it is sus- 
ceptible of proof. It is an hypothesis resorted to for 



l8o ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the purpose of escaping the difficulties supposed to 
arise from the inconsistency of certain facts revealed 
by modern science with the ordinary view of the 
chronology and unity of the race. It is not pre- 
tended that any clear traces can be discerned along 
the track of man's history of a plural origin of the 
race. There is certainly, as we go back in time, a 
convergence of lineage, of language, and of tradition 
toward one parental center; there is not toward 
any other. The -streams of migration during the 
ages have apparently come from one common foun- 
tain in Central Asia; there is no other such fountain 
from which they came. If there are or have been 
any nations whose origin can not be traced to Adam 
or Noah, it is sufficient to say that neither can they 
be traced to any other source. All positive evidence 
that there was more than one parental stock, from 
whom the various races and families have de- 
scended, is absolutely wanting. 

II. The alleged inconsistency of any known facts 
of science with the Scripture doctrine, to obviate 
which resort is had to the theory of plurality, has 
never yet been demonstrated. 

Take, first, the case of Cain. It is said that he 
was afraid that somebody would slay him for his 
crime of murdering Abel ; and as there were then 
but three living persons of the family of Adam, he 



THE HUMAN RACE. l8l 

must have referred to people of another race. But 
how is it ascertained that there were then but three 
persons living? Who knows how many children 
may have been born to our first parents between 
these two brothers, or how many after the birth of 
Abel? Who can tell what the age of either of the 
brothers was at the time of the homicide? Certainly, 
even Abel had grown to something like man's es- 
tate, and Cain was older than he. Besides, why 
limit the murderer's fears to persons then living? 
There were generations to come, among whom he 
knew that the stor}^ would be told ; and he might 
well apprehend that some avenger of blood would 
arise long years after that, to redress the wrong done 
to his kinsman, and inflict justice upon his slayer. 

In the matter of Cain's wife, also, the difficulty is 
•greatly exaggerated. It is conceded that the fiVst 
marriage among Adam's descendants must have 
been between a brother and sister. But it by no 
means follows that such a marriage, in those circum- 
stances, was incestuous, in the later signification of 
that term. He who appointed marriage for the wel- 
fare of the race could have sanctioned it, in this 
necessary instance, as readily as he forbade the 
repetition of it afterward. Besides, the difficulty is 
not obviated by the supposition of another race, 
among whom Cain may have found a wife. For 



1 82 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

she must, again, have been descended from some 
primeval pair, in whose family the same difficulty 
must have existed — a marriage equally incestuous. 
Or if, to avoid 'this, you suppose still another race, 
whence the needed wife or husband might have 
come, you only shift the difficulty again to this. 
You must, therefore, resort to the absurd supposi- 
tion of an infinite number of distinct human races, or 
you must confront the marriage itself, and justify 
it in its own nature, which you can as well do in 
the case of Cain and his sister-wife as in any other. 

But the chief difficulties which have caused a 
resort to the theory under examination grow out of 
the diversities in color, physiognomy, and other 
personal characteristics existing among different 
branches of the race. It is claimed that these 
diversities are too great, and have been of too long 
standing to be consistent with the idea of a common 
descent, especially within the circumscribed period 
between their actual appearance and the time of 
Noah. In the proof and illustration of these diver- 
sities, great research and learning have been ex- 
hibited, and many able works have been written. 
To treat this topic according to its importance will 
require a somewhat lengthened consideration. 

The subject really involves two questions : first, 
Can the known diversities existing in the various 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 83 

branches of the human race have come, in the way 
of gradual variation, from one original type? and 
second. If intrinsically possible, can it have been 
done within the limited space of time which, with 
the most pliant Scripture chronology, we are able 
to allow for it? These questions, however, though 
properly separate, so run into each other, that it will 
be more easy to consider them together. 

The affirmative of both of them is argued, i. From 
the superficial character of these diversities; 2. The 
actual changes which have been observed as taking 
place in particular circumstances of the race; 3. 
From the analogy of similar changes which have 
occurred in other animals, particularly in those 
most nearly associated with man, and subject to the 
same general influences that have operated on him. 

I . Naturalists are not agreed as to the number of 
sub-races into which the human family should be 
divided. Some make two only, the white and the 
black. Morton reckons twenty-two, and Burke six- 
ty-three. Agassiz makes eight principal centers 
of creation, which he calls " zoological provinces," 
viz., the Arctic, the Mongolian, the European, the 
I American, the Negro, the Hottentot, the Malay, and 
"^the Australian. But whatever be the number, it is 
now regarded as settled that the differences between 
them are not specific — that the entire genus homo 
consists of but a single species. 



184 ANTIQiJITY AND UNITY OF 

In this position all the best authorities are agreed. 
" Linnaeus, Blumenbach, Cuvier, Lawrence, Cam- 
per, Dr. Prichard, Humboldt, Zimmerman, Pick- 
ering, and many other distinguished naturalists, 
consider the species as sufficiently proved ; and the 
French Academy of Science, in one of its reports, 
speaking of Blumenbach, remarks that ' a profound 
gulf, without connection or passage, separates the 
human species from every other. There is no other 
species that is akin to the human, nor any genus 
whatever. The human race stands alone.'"* 

This is proved, first, from the fact that " there is 
an essential identity among men of all races in 
physical and mental characteristics."! Our space 
will not allow us to go over the whole field, and 
show this fact in detail. Dr. Bachman, in his " Doc- 
trine of the Unity of the Human Race," adduces a 
large number of particulars in the osteological struc- 
ture of man in which the various races are identical. 
Professor Godron, the distinguished French natural- 
ist, in the second chapter of his great work,| treats 

* Dr. John Hall, in Pickering's Races of Men, Introd. p. 27. 

t Professor J. D. Dana, Geology, p. 584. 

:j: De I'Espece etdes Races dans lesetres Organises, et speciale- 
ment de I'Unite de I'Espece Humaine. Par D. A. Godron, Doc- 
teur en Medecine, Docteur es Sciences, Doyen de la Faculte des 
Sciences de Nan.cy, Professeur d'Histoire Naturelle k la metne 
Faculte, Directeur du Jardin des Plantes, etc. 2 vols., 8vo. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 85 

of the organic, physiological, and psychological dif- 
ferences which were present among themselves, and 
compares them with those which are shown among 
domestic animals. He takes into view all the vari- 
ations in the form of the skull, and bones in other 
parts of the body, the size, color of the skin, color 
and quality of the hair, etc., etc., and draws from 
the whole the following conclusion: "The organic 
and physiological differences seen in the different 
varieties of mankind are analogous to those which 
are known to exist among the domestic animals, 
and the psychological differences of the different 
peoples of the earth are neither original nor perma- 
nent." And Professor Owen, than whom there is 
no. greater authority on topics of this kind, says, 
" With regard to the value to be assigned to the dis- 
tinctions of race, in consequence of not any of these 
differences being equivalent to those characteristics 
of the skeleton or other parts of the frame upon 
which specific differences are founded by naturalists 
in reference to the rest of the animal creation, I have 
come to the conclusion that man forms one species, 
and that differences are but indicative of varieties, 
. . . These varieties merge into each other by 
easy gradations. The Malay and the Polynesian 
link the Mongolian and the Indian [Indo-European] 
varieties, and the Indian is linked by the Esqui- 



1 86 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

maux again to the Mongolian. The inhabitants of 
the Andaman Islands, New Guinea, New Cale- 
donia, and Australia, in a minor degree, seem to fill 
up the hiatus between the Malay and the Ethiopian 
varieties ; and in no case can a well-marked, definite 
line be drawn between the physical characteristics 
of allied varieties, these merging more or less grada- 
tionally the one into the other." * " The unity of 
the human species is demonstrated by the constancy 
of those osteological and dental characters to which 
the attention is more particularly directed in the 
investigation of the corresponding characters in the 
higher quadrumana." f 

2. In the ascending scale of animals the number 
of species in any genus diminishes as we rise, and 
should, by analogy, be t^e smallest at the head of 
the series. Professor Dana states this rule thus : 
" Among the mammals the higher genera have few 
species, and the highest group next to man — that of 
the orang outang — contains only eight, and these 
eight belong to two genera. . . . Analogy re- 
quires that man should here have the preeminence. 
If more than one species be admitted, there is 
scarcely a limit to the number that may be made." | 
The different varieties shade off' into each other by 

* Lect. before Cambridge University, May lo, 1859, P- 9^- 
t Ibid. p. 103. X Geology, p. 584. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 87 

insensible gradations. " Some," says Bachman,* 
" have divided man into two species, some into three, 
some into five, one into eight separate creations, 
and one, more enthusiastic than all the rest, can see 
no reason why * there were not originally a hundred 
species.' (Nott's Bib. Hist. p. 33.)'' A position 
which thus violates one of the great principles that 
rule through the whole animal world can not be' ad- 
mitted without the most stringent necessity. 

3. All the varieties of the race are capable of 
intermixture, and the mixed breeds have the power 
of self-perpetuation to any extent, which is not true 
of hybrids between two distinct species. It is a lavyt 
both of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, that 
the union of different species can never produce a 
perpetually fertile offspring. In other words, the 
distinction of species through the whole realm of 
life is fixed and permanent ; it is never obliterated 
by intermixtures ; it is extinguished only by the ex- 
tinction of the race itself. This law is set forth so 
clearly and forcibly by Professor Dana,! ^^at we 
take leave to quote it in full. 

" Permanence of Species. 
" What now may we infer with regard to the perma- 
nence or fixedness of species from a general survey of 
nature ? 

* Examination of the Character of Genera and Species, p. i8. 
t In the Bib. Sacra for October, 1857, pp. 862-866. 



1 88 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

" Let us turn again to the inorganic world. Do we 
there find oxygen blending by indefinite shadings with 
hydrogen, or with any other element? Is its combining 
number, its potential equivalent, a varying number — 
usually 8, but at times 8 and a fraction, 9, and so on ? 
Far from this ; the number is as fixed as the universe. 
There are no indefinite blendings of elements. There are 
combinations by multiples or sub-multiples, but these 
prove the dominance and fixedness of the combining 
numbers. 

" But further than this, fixed numbers, definite in 
value and defiant of all destroying powers, are well known 
to characterize nature from its basement to its top-stone. 
•We find them in combinations by volume as well as 
weight, that is, in all the relations of chemical attraction ; 
in the mathematical forms of crystals and the simple ratios 
in their modifications — evidence of a numerical basis to 
cohesive attraction ; in the laws of light, heat, and sound. 
Indeed, as we have elsewhere said, the whole constitution 
of inorganic nature, and of our minds with reference to 
nature, involves fixed numbers ; and the universe is not 
only based on mathematics, but on finite determinate num- 
bers, in the very natures of all its elemental forces. Thus 
the temple of nature is made, we may say, of hewn 
and measured stones, so that, although reaching to the 
heavens, we may measure, and thus use the finite to rise 
toward the infinite. 

" This being true for inorganic nature, it is necessarily 
the law for all nat:ure ; for the ideas that pervade the uni- 



THE HUMAN RACE. 189 

verse are not ideas of contrariety, but of unity and univer- 
sality beneath and through diversity. 

" Looking to facts in nature, v^e see, accordingly, 
everywhere, that the purity of species has been guarded 
with great precision. It strikes us naturally with wonder, 
that even in senseless plants, without the emotional repug- 
nance of instinct, and with reproductive organs that are all 
outside, the free winds being often the means of transmis- 
sion, there should be rigid law sustained against intermix- 
ture. The supposed cases of perpetuated fertile hybridity 
are so exceedingly few as almost to condemn themselves, 
as no true examples of an abnormity so abhorrent to the 
system. They violate a principle so essential to the in- 
tegrity of the plant-kingdom, and so opposed to nature's 
whole plan, that we rightly demand long and careful 
study before admitting the exceptions. 

*' A few words will explain what is meant by perpetu- 
ated fertile hybridity. The following are the supposa- 
ble grades of results from intermixture between two 
species : — 

" I. No issue whatever — the usual case in nature. 

" 2. Mules (naming thus the issue) that are wholly 
infertile, whether among themselves or in 'case of con- 
nection with the pure or original stock. 

" 3. Mules that are wholly infertile among themselves, 
but may have issue for a generation or two by connection 
with one of the original stock. 

" 4. Mul^s that are wholly infertile among themselves, 



ipO ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF 

but may have issue through indefinite generations by- 
connection for each with an individual of the original 
stock. 

" 5. Mules that are fertile among themselves through 
one or two generations. 

" 6. Mules that are fertile among themselves through 
many generations. 

" 7. Mules that are fertile among themselves through 
an indefinite number of generations. 

'' The cases i to 5 are known to be established facts 
in nature, and each bears its testimony to the grand law 
of purity and permanence. The examples under the 
heads 2 to 5 become severally less and less numerous, 
and art must generally use an unnatural play of forces or 
arrangements to bring them about. 

" Again, in the animal kingdom there is the same aver- 
sion in nature to intermixture, and it is emotional as well 
as physical. The supposed cases of fertile hybridity are 
fewer than among plants. 

" Moreover, in both kingdoms, if hybridity be begun, 
nature commences at once to purify herself as of an ulcer 
on the system. It is treated like a disease, and the ener- 
gies of the species combine to throw it oflf. The short 
run of hybridity between the horse and the ass, — species 
very closely related, — reaching its end in one single gen- 
eration^ instead of favoring the idea that the perpetuated 
fertile hybridity is possible, is a speaking protest against 
a principle that would ruin the system, if allowed free 
scope. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I9I 

*' The finiteness of nature in all her proportions, and 
the necessity of finiteness and fixedness for the very exist- 
ence of a kingdom of life, or of human science its im- 
press on finite mind, are hence strong arguments for the 
belief that hybridity can not seriously trifle with the true 
units of nature, and, at the best, can only make temporary 
variations. 

" It is fair to make the supposition that, in case of a 
very close proximity of species, there might be a degree 
of fertile hybridity allov^ed, and that a closer and closer 
affinity might give a longer and longer range of fertility. 
But the case just now alluded to, seems to cut the hypoth- 
esis short ; and, moreover, it is not reasonable to attribute 
such indefiniteness to nature's outlines, for it is at vari- 
ance with the spirit of her system. 

" Were such a case demonstrated by well-established 
facts, it would necessarily be admitted ; and we would 
add, that investigations directed to this point are the most 
important that modern science can undertake. But until 
proved by arguments better than those drawn from domes- 
ticated animals, we may plead the general principle 
against the possibilities on the other side. If there is a 
law to be discovered, it is a wide and comprehensive law, 
for such are all nature's principles. Nature will teach it, 
not in one corner of her system only, but more or less in 
every part. We have, therefore, a right to ask for well- 
defined facts, taken from the study of successive genera- 
tions of the interbreeding of species known to be distinct. 

" Least of all should we expect that a law which is so 



192 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

rigid among plants and the lower animals should have 
its main exceptions in the highest class of the animal 
kingdom, and its most extravagant violations in the genus 
Homo ; for if there are more than one species of Man, they 
have become, in the main, indefinite by intermixture. 
The very crown of the kingdom has been despoiled ; for 
a kingdom in nature is perfect only as it retains all its 
original parts in their full symmetry, undefaced and un- 
blurred. Man, by receiving a plastic body, in accordance 
with a law that species most capable of domestication 
should necessarily be most pliant, was fitted to take the 
whole" earth as his dominion, and live under every zone. 
And surely it would have been a very clumsy method of 
accomplishing the same result, to have made him of man^ 
species, all admitting of indefinite or nearly indefinite 
hybridization, in direct opposition to a grand principle 
elsewhere recognized in the organic kingdoms. It would 
have been using a process that produces impotence or 
nothing among animals for the perpetuation and progress 
of the human race. . . . 

" We have, therefore, reason to believe, from man's fer- 
tile intermixture, that he is one in species ; and that all 
organic species are divine appointments, which cannot 
be obliterated unless by annihilating the individuals repre- 
senting the species." 

We regard it, then, as a settled truth, no longer 
capable of being controverted, that the human family, 
throughout all its varieties, constitutes one species. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I93 

And if so, then they may^ at least, have all de- 
scended from a single parental pair. However great 
the diversities between them, or of however long 
standing,^ there is nothing in this fact to disprove 
the Bible doctrine of the unity of the race, or to 
make necessary the hypothesis of one, or any num- 
ber of races, different from and perhaps older than 
that which descended from Adam. 

We have said that they may have all descended 
from one pair ; and this is all that my argument 
requires in this place. But we might go further, 
and insist that the unity of species requires the idea 
of such a descent; that it is given, indeed, in the 
very nature of a species. " We unite," says Can- 
dolle, " under the designation of a Sjl)ecies all those 
individuals who mutually bear to each other so close 
a resemblance as to allow of our supposing that 
they may have -proceeded originally Jrom a sifigle 
being or a single ■pair.''^ * Professor Dana's defi- 
nition appears to amount to the same thing. He 
says, " A species corresponds to a specific amount or 
condition of concentrated force, defined in the act or 
law of creation. . . . The species in any partic- 
ular case began its existence when the first germ-cell 
or individual was created. . . . But the germ- 
cell is but an incipient stat€ in a cycle of changes, 

* Physiologic V6getale, ii. p. 689. 
13 



194 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

and is not the same for two successive instants ; and 
this cycle is such that it includes, in its flow, a re- 
production after an interval of a precise equivalent 
of the parent germ-cell. Thus an indefinite per- 
petuation of the germ-cell is in fact effected, yet it 
is not mere endless being, but like evolving like in 
an unlimited round. Hence, when individuals mul- 
tiply from generation to generation, it is but a repe- 
tition of the primordial type-idea ; and the true no- 
tion of the species is not in the resulting group, but 
in the idea or potential element which is at the basis 
of every individual of the group; that is, the specific 
law of force, alike in all, upon which the power of 
each, as an existence and agent in nature, depends." * 
This is but saying, in exact, scientific language, 
that all the individuals of a species are developed 
by this law of force from one " parent germ-cell." 
If, then, all the individuals of the human family are 
of one species, their descent from one pair is, by 
that very fact, established. 

But we are aware that this idea of a species, as 
including the element of descent from a single pair 
or individual, is not conceded by polygenists. 
Agassiz, as we have seen, though asserting the 
specific unity of mankind, holds such an idea of 
species as to permit their descent from eight origi- 

* Bib. Sac. October, 1857, P- 861. 



THE HUMAN RACE. I95 

nal centers. We will not, therefore, insist on the 
argument here, though we still claim that, on this 
point, he and all pluralists depart from the estab- 
lished usage of science, inventing definitions of their 
own for the sole purpose of maintaining precon- 
ceived theories.* 

2. Not only are the diversities in the human 
family consistent with the unity of the species, but 
changes are even now constantly taking place, anal- 
ogous, both in kind and degree, to those which 
originated those diversities. Nor are these-changes 
confined to any race or countr}'. The}^ are seen 
in all cases where there is any considerable change 
in the condition and circumstances under which they 
live. 

Says the writer of the article "Man," in the 
"Cyclopaedia of Natural History," "What maybe 
the precise influences which have caused so much 
difference to exist between the individuals of the 
human race, we are unable to say ; but instances 
are constantly occurring which seem to show us 
how possible it is that all the varieties in human 
beings have occurred in a common family. Even 
amongst the races of our own island, when exposed 
to circumstances which deprive them of their usual 
nutriment and means of developing the civilized 

* See Bachman's "Examination," etc. 



196 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

instincts of mankind, we. find that they sink in char- 
acter, and become physically degraded to a level 
with races whose features, at first sight, are ver}'- 
far removed. We need but to travel across the 
Irish Channel to see many groups of our Celtic fel- 
low-subjects, who have been reduced by famine and 
disease to a degraded condition closely bordering 
on that of these savages." To the same effect re- 
marks Professor Whitney,* " Physical science is as 
yet far from having determined the kind, the rate, 
and the amount of modification which external con- 
ditions, as climate and mode of life, can introduce 
into a race-type ; but that within certain undefined 
limits their influence is very powerful, is fully ac- 
knowledged. There is, to be sure, a party among 
zoologists and ethnologists who insist much upon 
the dogma of * fixity of type,' and assert that all 
human rSices are original ; but the general tendency 
of scientific opinion is in the other direction, toward 
the fuller admission of the variability of species. 
The first naturalists are still, and more than ever, 
willing to admit that all the differences now existing 
among human races may be the effects of variation 
from a single type, and that it is at least not neces- 
sary to resort to the hypothesis of difierent origins 
in order to explain them." 

* Langviage, and the Study of Language, p. 376. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 97 

Two or three instances of change in the physical 
characteristics of a people are all that our space will 
permit us to cite. One is that of the Jews. " For 
1800 years," says Owen,* "that race has been dis- 
persed in different latitudes and climates, and they 
have preserved themselves distinct from intermix- 
ture with other races of mankind. There are some 
Jews still lingering in the valley of the Jordan, hav- 
ing been oppressed by the successive conquerors of 
Syria for ages — a low race of people, and de- 
scribed, by trustworthy travelers, as being black 
as any of the Ethiopian races. Others of the Jew- 
ish people, participating in European civilization, 
and dwelling in the northern nations, show instances 
of the light complexion, the blue eyes, and the fair 
hair of the Scandinavian families. The condition 
of the Hebrews since their dispersion has not been 
such as to admit of much admixture by the prose- 
lytism of household slaves. We are thus led to 
account for the differences in color by the influence 
of climate, without having to refer them to original 
or specific distinctions." 

Another case is that of the Portuguese, who set- 
tled in the East Indies in the beginning of the six- 
teenth century. They have now become as dark 
in their complexions as the native Hindus. 

* Lecture before Camb. University, 1859, P* 96- 



.198 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF 

Latham * thus speaks of changes which have 
taken place in the Mantchu population of Tartary : 
"Well clothed, warmly lodged, and with an envi- 
ronment of civilization, many of the Mantchus of 
China have changed their physiognomy no less than 
their habits. Sir John Barrow saw both men and 
women of Mantchu blood who were extremely fair, 
and of a florid complexion. Some had light blue 
.eyes, straight or aquiline noses, brown hair, immense 
bushy beards, and had more the appearance of 
Greeks than of Tatars. Whatever intermixtures 
may account for this description, it will not explain 
the beards'. The Chinese have nothing of the kind ; 
still less have the Mongols." 

Mr. Reade, the writer quoted so largely in the 
Appendix, J, p. 396, after mentioning the various 
sub-classes of the African population, describes at 
length the changes which take place among them as 
they remove from their native districts toward the 
Atlantic coast, the proper locality of the typical 
negro. 

" That the red races change to black when they descend 
into the lowlands can not, I think, be easily disputed. I 
was told by the Senegal residents, that some years ago 
it was very rarely that one saw a black Fula or Puelh. 
It is now almost impossible to find a Fula without travel- 

* Descriptive Ethnology, i. p. 264. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 1 99 

in^ some distance into the interior. With the Man- 
dingos it is much the same. These two tribes are driving 
out the negroes that they may command certain positions 
on the river ; the result of which is, that they are becom- 
ing: negroes themselves. 

" In the same manner the Fans, of the Sierra del Crys- 
tal, are taking possession of the lower Gaboon. There 
are now no black Fans. But they will be found there 
by future travelers. 

" Sangnier, in his ' Voyage au Senegal,' writes, ' The 
Satinguets (African), people of Podor, toward the Sen- 
egal, are not as black as the other negroes, but copper- 
colored and red ; their children, who come to the Senegal 
and dwell there for some time, have a skin much blacker 
than it was.' 

" It frequently occurs, too, that families or tribes with 
negro characters are found under circumstances which ren- 
der an intermixture of race impossible ; the cause, there- 
fore, can only be ascribed to physical influence. . . . 

"It has been frequently asserted that the Ethiopian 
can not change his skin ; that Nature has placed, like a 
curse, an indelible stamp upon his form and features, 
which will never change, to whatever climate he may be 
borne. 

" But proverbs are not arguments, nor assertions facts. 
That the type is stubborn I will allow, but I can not admit 
that it is permanent." 

But it may be said that though certain changes 
in physical characteristics may have taken place in 



200 , ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the lapse of time, yet all the existing races had 
reached their present types at the very beginning of 
the historic period, within a very few centuries, at 
most, of the flood — a space much too short to have 
developed the differences between them. Represen- 
tations both of men and animals are found on the 
oldest monuments of Egypt and Assyria, which 
show all the diversities now existing among dif- 
ferent nations. Even then, if we concede the com- 
mon origin of men, we are compelled to throw it 
so far back in time as to be wholly inconsistent with 
the Mosaic chronology. 

To this allegation Dr. Bachman well ."replies 
that the monumental figures referred to are too 
rude and imperfect to have any real value in the 
argument. 

" The reduced figures in Nott and Gliddon we have not 
compared with the originals. Taking them, however, 
just as they are presented to the reader, and presuming 
them to be faithful copies, we have no hesitation in saying 
that, for all the purposes of the naturalist in the designa- 
tion of species or varieties, the figures of animals on the 
monuments are entirely valueless, and can not advance 
him a single step in a science which requires the closest 
accuracy. . . . Let us only look at the figures on a 
single page, the 388th of ' Nott and Gliddon's Types,' 
and then inquire what lights these would afford us in the 



THE HUMAN RACE. 201 

designation of species or varieties. If the upper figure is 
a greyhound, as is stated, it must be not only a new 
species, but a new genus, since we have evidently nothing 
in nature at the present day to correspond to it. If this is 
an accurate representation of the greyhound, as it then 
.existed (with a short tail turned upward like that of the 
rabbit), it affords one of the strongest evidences of the 
changes which time has effected, since no such variety 
of greyhound exists in our day. . . . We feel con- 
vinced that the ancient artists were no naturalists, and 
are inclined to the belief that they had no specimens 
before them to aid in their delineations — that with them 
a dog was a dog ; and it now requires the aid of the 
imagination to decide on the variety. We feel no dis- 
position in this place to enter on an investigation of 
those caricatures of dogs, as we are fully aware that 
the book of nature is a much safer guide to the natu- 
ralist in the investigation of species than the very im- 
perfect and unsatisfactory figures on the monuments. 
. . . We may here observe that the figures of dogs 
and men (the latter only are of any scientific value) on 
the Eastern monuments have been carefully studied and 
delineated by master minds — men at whose feet Glid- 
don has sat as a humble copyist. They have com- 
menced giving to the world the result pf their scientific 
researches. Both Lepsius and Bunsen have already 
proclaimed their belief in the doctrine of the unity of 
the human race. . . . Thus these monumental 
records, which caused Gliddon to pronounce, in the 



202 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

language of scorn and obloquy,* a tirade against the 
Scriptures, convinced the minds of Lepsius and Bunsen 
of their truth, and filled them with humility, reverence, 
and awe. Their scientific researches satisfied them of 
the doctrines proclaimed by Moses and confirmed by 
Paul. * And [God] hath made of one blood all nations 
of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.' . . . 
" These distinguished naturalists both arrived at the 
conclusion from these very monuments, that the negro 
race had only been developed, in the course of ages, 
within the African tropics, and were derived from 
Egypt." 

3 . The possibility of the development of the ex- 
isting races of men from a common origin, within 
the period since the time of Noah, is strongly con- 
firmed by the analogous changes which have taken 
place in the various species of domestic animals 
— the horse, the ox, the swine, the sheep, the dog; 
also fowls, geese, ducks, etc. For an able exhibi- 
tion of this argument, and of the facts which sub- 
stantiate it, see Appendix, K. 

III. The theory of the plural origin of the human 
species, in different localities and at different times, 
is contrary to the analogy afforded by all other 
departments of the animal kingdom. It is a law 
of universal creation, so far as known, that every 

* A true charge. See Types of Mankind. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 203 

species of animals had a single origin. Says 
Professor Dana, — 

" Among the higher mammals no species is known to 
have existed originally within the tropics or temperate 
zones on both the oriental and occidental continents. 
. . . And more than this, species have a limited 
range on that particular continent to which they are con- 
fined. 

" The same species among monkeys — the tribe at the 
head of the brute mammals — in no instance occurs on 
both, nor even the same genus, nor even the same family, 
for the American type is that of the inferior Platyr- 
rhines^ while the African is that of the Catarrhines^ 
which most approach man in their features and struc- 
ture. This is only the highest of an extensive range of 
facts in zoology, sustaining the principle in view. If, 
therefore, man is of one species, he should be restricted 
also to one continent in his origin. 

'* Moreover, man's capability of spreading to all lands, 
and of adaptation to all climates, renders creation in 
different localities over the globe eminently unnecessary, 
and directly opposed to his own good. It would be 
doing for man what man could do of himself It would 
be contracting the field of conquest before him in nature, 
thereby lessening his means and opportunities of devel- 
opment." * 

Says Dr. Bachman, — 

* Geology, p. 585. 



204 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

" All our quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, and even our 
plants, in the temperate regions of America, are found 
to differ from those in every other part of the w^orld.* 
The fauna of Europe so much resembles our own in its 
genera, that the American traveler feels in that country 
as if he was among neighbors, but not quite in his own 
family, inasmuch as the species, though nearly allied, 
all differ, with the exception of those that have been 
transported and become naturalized. Of birds, we are at 
present acquainted with 520 species that exist in America, 
north of the Tropic of Cancer. Of these, twenty-six land 
birds and seventy-six water birds are identical with those 
of Europe. The land birds here enumerated, resort to 
the polar regions in summer, for the purpose of rearing 
their young, and in autumn find their way to the tem- 
perate regions of both continents. A few of the water 
birds, such as the wandering shear-water {^Puffinus An- 
glorum)^ and the petrels, possess such powers of flight 
that fhey cross the Atlantic in any latitude! The geese, 
ducks, gulls, terns, common gannet, etc., proceed far 
north during summer, and, by their aquatic habits and 
great powers of flight, migrate southerly along the shores 
of the Atlantic, bioth in Northern Europe and America. 
Of the remaining 418 species, they are restricted within 
certain latitudes in America, and are found in no other 
country. 

" We have within the parallels of latitude referred to 

* Except, of course, those which have been introduced by 
man. — B. 



• THE HUMAN RACE. 205 

above, in North America, two hundred and seven species 
of quadrupeds. Of these, only eight, all of which are 
'polar animals, are found in the north of Europe, or the 
adjoining continent of Asia ; these are the polar bear, 
arctic fox, w^olverine, ermine, pine martin, w^olf, beaver, 
and the polar hare. The remainder are restricted to cer- 
tain geographical ranges, and are found nowhere else." 

Professor B. advances similar statements respect- 
ing fishes and plants, and concludes as follows : 
" Reasoning then from analogy, we are led to con- 
clude that, since no species of quadruped, bird, or 
reptilcvand, we may add, insect or plant, has been 
created in two or more localities ; therefore we are 
not warranted in adopting the improbable idea that 
God would create the same species of man in five, 
ten, or fifty localities, and thereby not only violate the 
order of creation, but even act contrary to the very- 
laws of probability." (p. 266.) 

It should be added, in this connection, that Pro- 
fessor Agassiz himself concedes that his view of the 
plural origin of man is an exception to the general 
rule in the animal creation. "While [the lower] 
animals are of distinct species in the different zoolo- 
gical provinces to which they belong, man, notwith- 
standing the diversity of his races, constitutes one 
only and the same species over all the surface of 
the globe. In this respect, as in many others, man 



206 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

seems to us to form an exception to the general rule 
in this creation, of which he is, at the same time, the 
object and the end." * 

IV. The polygenetic theory of the origin of 
mankind meets with a formidable objection from 
theological and moral science. I know that many 
naturalists repudiate all reference to theology in the 
discussion of such a question as this. But are they 
consistent in so doing? They endeavor, as much 
as possible, to gather weapons from every depart- 
ment of natural science against theology ; but when 
the batteries are turned in reply, they exclaim, 
"This is a question of science, and theology has 
nothing to do with it." But, we may ask, is not 
theology a science? And though professed theo- 
logians differ in regard to many essential doctrines 
of theology, yet do they differ more than do the nat- 
uralists — even the masters — in regard to some of 
the natural sciences, say, e. g., that of theology? 

It is a maxim with scientific men that all the 
sciences harmonize with each other, audit is always 
customary to bring facts and illustrations from one 
to elucidate and confirm another. And it would be 
strange, indeed, if theology could shed no light on a 

* An account of the geographical distribution of animals, by 
L. Agassiz, in the Swiss Review, Neufchatel. Quoted bj Dr. 
Bachman, p. 248. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 207 

question so directly concerning a religious being. 
We admit that man is an animal, but he is a moral 
and religious animal. And having discussed the 
subject, as we properly may, in its purely natural 
aspects, by whose dictum shall we be debarred from 
considering it also in its supernatural, its religious 
aspects? Such an objection finds no warrant in true 
science, which looks for truth wherever it is to be 
found. 

Two points here merit our attention. Whatever 
be the characteristics that make man a moral and 
religious being, they are possessed in common hy all 
races of men. These characteristics are the power 
of speech, the moral sense, the aesthetic faculty, 
etc. I do not say that all races, in their rude condi- 
tion, have these in a like degree, but that they all 
possess them. Not a people on the globe has been 
found so degraded that these qualities, under the in- 
fluence of Christian missions, have not been devel- 
oped among them. Of course teaching does not 
create them. It merely calls into exercise qualities 
which previously existed, though, in some cases, in 
almost a dormant state. In the fact that man thus 
possesses a moral nature, he stands apart from the 
entire animal creation besides, and constitutes a sin- 
gle distinct species. 

The other fact is, that all men sustain a like rela- 



208 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

tion to God and his government. All are in a fallen 
and morally debased state, and need redemption and 
salvation. And it is a doctrine of Christian the- 
ology, that Jesus Christ is a divine Redeemer for 
all. Now, this fact can not be adjusted to the theory 
of a plurality of origin without doing violence to the 
plainest teachings of the New Testament. By one 
man sin entered into the world, and the race became 
a fallen race ; by one man also salvation is pro- 
vided, and its blessings are opened to all. The 
very fact of the common relation of all men to Adam, 
their parental head, is made the type and the ground 
of their similar common relation to Christ, the second 
Adam, the Saviour of the world.* 

We conclude, then, that Ethnology, in its physio- 
logical aspects, concurs with history as respects the 
unity of the race. She presents to us no facts which 
are inconsistent with that unity ; she finds nothing 
in the analogies from the lower races of animals 
which does not illustrate and confirm it. 

* Rom. V. 12-19; I Cor. xv. 31, 22, 45. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 209 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM LANGUAGE. 

The Hebrew formerly believed to have been the Primitive Lan- 
guage. — Discovery of the Sanskrit, and its Effects. — Views 
of Stewart and Lord Monboddo. — Labors of Sanskrit Schol- 
ars. — Key to the Classification of Indo-European Languages. 

— Three great Families. — I. The Aryan. — II. The Semitic. 

— III. The Turanian. — Classification according to Structure. 

— Monosyllabic, Agglutinative, and Inflectional. — Bearing 

of the Diversity of Languages on the Argument i. The 

Miraculous '^ Confusion of Tongues." — 2. Languages have 
much in common between them. — 3. Differences diminish 
as our Knowledge increases. — 4. Languages undergo rapid 
Changes. — Conclusion. 

Scarcely three fourths of a century have elapsed 
since the belief prevailed almost universally that the 
Hebrew was the primitive language of mankind, and 
that all other languages have been derived from it. 
If we go back one or two centuries more, we arrive 
at a time when this opinion was quite universal. 
According to Professor Miiller, Leibnitz was "the 
first who really conquered the prejudice that Hebrew 
14 



2IO ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

was the source of all language." * "It is astonish- 
ing," he remarks, "what an immense amount of real 
learning and ingenuity was wasted on this question 
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 
It finds, perhaps, but one parallel — in the laborious 
.calculations and constructions of early astronomers, 
who had to account for the movements of the heav- 
enly bodies, always taking it for granted that the 
earth must be the fixed center of the planetary sys- 
tem. f 

" These labors continued till near the close of the 
last century, when the discovery and opening up of 
the Sanskrit literature wrought an entire revolution 
in regard to the whole subject of the classification 
of languages. So great was the excitement caused 
by this discovery, so radical and important were the 
results which it was perceived must flow from it, 
that some of the first scholars and philosophers of 
Europe doubted its genuineness. For example, 
Dugald Stewart denied the reality of such a lan- 
guage as the Sanskrit altogether, and wrote his 
famous essay to prove that it had been put together 
after the model of the Greek and Latin by those 
arch forgers and liars the Brahmans, and that the 
whole of the Sanskrit literature was an imposition." | 

* Science of Lang., first series, p. 134. 

t Ibid. p. 133. t Ibid. p. 164. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 211 

Lord Monboddo treated the subject more philosoph- 
ically, though scarcely more consistently. " Fie 
had," says Miiller, "just finished his great work 
* On the Origin and Progress of Languages,' in 
which he derives all mankind from a couple of apes, 
and all the dialects of the world from a language 
originally framed by some Egyptian gods, when the 
discovery of the Sanskrit came on him like a thun- 
derbolt. It must be said, however, to his credit, 
that he at once perceived the immense importance 
of the discovery. He could not be expected to sac- 
rifice his primeval monkeys or his Egyptian idols, 
but with that reservation the conclusions which he 
drew . . . are highly creditable to his acute- 
ness. He says (1792), 'I have got such certain 
information from India, that if I live to finish my 
history of man, which I have begun in my third 
volume of " Ancient Metaphysics," I shall be able 
clearly to prove that the Greek is derived from the 
Sanskrit, which was the ancient language of Egypt, 
and was carried by the Egyptians into India with 
their other arts, and into Greece with the colonies 
which settled there.* 

"A few years later (1795) he had arrived at more 
definite views on the relation of Sanskrit to Greek ; 
and he writes, ' Mr. Wilkins has proved to my con- 
viction such a resemblance between the Greek and 



212 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the Sanskrit, that the one must be a dialect of the 
other, or both of some original language. Now, the 
Greek is certainly not a dialect of the Sanskrit, any 
more than the Sanskrit is of the Greek. They 
must, therefore, be both dialects of the same lan- 
guage ; and that language could be no other than 
the language of Egypt brought into India by Osiris, 
of which undoubtedly the Greek was a dialect.' " * 

But I must give another quotation from this dis- 
tinguished nobleman and philosopher, to show his 
idea of the origin of human speech. 

" I have supposed that language could not be in- 
vented without supernatural assistance, and accord- 
ingly I have maintained that it was the invention of 
the dagmon kings of Egypt, who, being more than 
men, first taught themselves to articulate, and then 
taught others. But even ^mong them, I am per- 
suaded there was a progress in the art, and that 
such a language as the Sanskrit was not at once 
invented." f 

This passage constrains me to remark that, so far 
as I am aware, his lordship was the first to make 
any practical account of the daemon dynasties — the 
Manes — of Egypt. It is true that others had allowed 
them a place in chronology, w^ith a period of many 

* Science of Lang., First Series, p. 140. 

t Ibid. p. 160. Monboddo's Anc. Metaphysics, vol. iv. p. 357. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 213 

thousand years' duration, but it was reserved for our 
Scotch philosopher to tell us what those ghost mon - 
archs did in the practical affairs of men. They in- 
vented the Sanskrit language I 

These notices of two great scholars of the last cen- 
tury have a substantial value in relation to our sub- 
ject. They should teach us the uselessness, the 
danger, of premature generalizations, when as yet 
we have but a partial view of the facts involved. 
Lord Monboddo died in 1799, and Dugald Stewart 
in 1828 ; yet in the brief space of time since elapsed, 
what an entire revolution, both in knowledge and 
opinion, has taken place in regard to things on 
which they pronounced with so much authority ! 
And how often do we still see repetitions of the same 
haste in the conclusions which are drawn from im- 
perfect data, especially as bearing on the divine 
origin and authority of the Bible ! 

The history of what may be called European 
Sanskrit philology dates from the foundation of the 
Asiatic Society at Calcutta, in 1784. It was 
through the efforts of Sir William Jones, the mis- 
sionary Carey, and other English scholars, as Fos- 
ter, Wilkins, Colebrooke, etc., members of that 
society, that the language and literature of the 
Brahmans first became accessible to Europeans. 
In 1808 Frederick Schlegel published his litde 



214 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

work on " The Language and Wisdom of the In- 
dians," which, says Professor Miiller, "was like the 
wand of a magician." It pointed out the place where 
a new mine of knowledge should be opened, and it 
was not long before the most distinguished scholars 
of the day were sinking their shafts and raising the 
ore. The savants of the continent — as Bopp, Schle- 
gel, Lassen, Rosen, and Burnouf — resorted to Eng- 
land for the purpose of copying manuscripts at the 
East India House, and receiving assistance from 
Wilkins, Colebrooke, Wilson, and other distin- 
guished members of the old Indian civil service. 
The first elaborate comparison of the Sanskrit with 
the Greek and Latin was by Francis Bopp, in an 
essay published in 1816. Other works of his soon 
followed, and in 1833 appeared the first volume of 
his " Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit, Zend, 
Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Sclavonic, Gothic, and 
German languages." This work was not completed 
till 1852, nearly twenty years later. Other scholars 
entered the same rich field, and gathered from it 
very important and valuable fruits. 

But why, it may naturally be asked, should the 
discovery of the Sanskrit have wrought so great a 
change in the classificatory study of languages ? The 
answer is, that it furnished a key to the puzzle which 
had previously existed in the problem of languages. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 215 

It showed that the Sanskrit was intimately related 
to the Greek, Latin, and most of the European lan- 
guages, not as their parent, but as a sister in the same 
family. And as the modern Italian, French, Span- 
ish, and other Romance languages are sisters, de- 
rived from the Latin as their parent, so the San- 
skrit, with its affiliated tongues, must have had a 
common parent. When this was ascertained, " all 
languages," says Miiller, " seemed to fall of them- 
selves into their right position;" i. e., they all took 
their places as members of groups having natural 
relations to each other. The classification, how- 
ever, is not complete, there being some languages, 
as, for instance, the Chinese, respecting which phi- 
lologists differ in opinion as to the place they should 
occupy. 

Languages are comprehended, as is well known, 
by philologists under three general families — the 
Aryan, the Semitic, and the Turanian. My limits 
do not permit, nor does my object require, more 
than a bare enumeration of the different branches 
of these several families, with a mention of the 
geographical limits to which they properly belong. 

I. The Aryan * family, or, as it is frequently 

* By some, Avian. Both forms are found in Moller's writings. 
The Sanskrit has Arya. It is the same as the Arioi of Herodo- 
tus and other Greek writers. 



2l6 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

called, the Indo-European, the former " being the 
most ancient name by which the ancestors of this 
family distinguished themselves " (Miiller), the lat- 
ter indicating the geographical extent of the family 
in Asia and Europe. The former is the shortest, 
and contains a valuable historical reminiscence ; the 
latter shows at a glance the localities where it is to 
be found. It is subdivided into two groups — the 
northern or European, and the southern or Asiatic. 

At the head of the Asiatic group we, of course, 
place the Sanskrit with its dialects, the old Pali, 
and the Prakrit, ancient and modern, including the 
Bengali, the Hindi, the Punjaubi, and, according to 
some, the Urya, Marathi, and Guzerathi. Coming 
further west we find the languages of Afghanistan, 
Bokhara, Kurdistan, Media, Persia, Armenia, and 
some others, extending to the Black and Mediter- 
ranean Seas. The European group embraces the 
Greek, the Latin, the Sclavonic including the Lith- 
uanian, the Germanic, and the Celtic, with the 
various dialects derived from them. 

II. The Semitic family, so called because 
spoken mostly among the descendants of Shem. 
This has usually been subdivided into three branches 
— the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Arabic. 

The Hebrew — now a dead language — was spo- 
ken in Palestine from or before the days of Moses to 



THE HUMAN RACE. 21 7 

the time of Nehemiah and the Maccabees, when it 
was replaced by the Chaldee or Aramaic. The lan- 
guage of the Phoenicians and Carthaginians be- 
longed to this branch. 

The Aramaic consists of the Syrian (ancient and 
modern) and the Chaldean, the geographical limits 
•of which are Syria, Mesopotamia, and part of Baby- 
lonia. Here are classed the dialects of the Assyrian 
and Babylonian ruins, written in the cuneiform or 
arrow-shaped characters. 

The Arabic had for its original seat the Arabian 
peninsula. Here it is still spoken by a compact 
mass of aboriginal inhabitants, and the ancient 
inscriptions there (Himyaritic) testify to its early 
presence. In its more modern form, it has spread 
over Egypt and the northern coast of Africa, and is 
largely spoken in Turkey and Persia — indeed, 
wherever the Mohammedan religion has extended. 

There is a fourth group of languages, which by 
many are assigned a place in the Semitic family, 
but by others are established as a distinct family by 
themselves, called The Hamitic, from the Egyp- 
tian, — its most important member, — supposed to 
have been spoken by the descendants of Ham. 
This also is subdivided into three branches — the 
Egyptian — which was an older form of the modern 
Coptic, — the Ethiopian, the Libyan, or Berber, ex- 



2l8 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

tending along the northern coast of Africa, and the 
Hottentot, embracing the dialects of tribes at the 
southern extremity of the continent. This family of 
languages present many analogies with the Semitic. 
Both the Egyptian and Babylonian, says Miiller, 
" though clearly marked with a Semitic stamp, 
represent two scions of the Semitic stem, which 
branched off at a period of history so early, or rather 
so long before the beginning of all history, that they 
may be considered as independent colonies, rather 
than as constituent parts of the kingdom of Shem. 
The same remark applies to Semitic tribes in the 
north of Africa, the number and extent of which is 
almost daily increased by the researches of African 
travelers and missionaries." * 

III. The third family of languages is the Tura- 
nian. The name is derived from Tur^ who, in an 
old Persian legend, was one of the three brothers 
from whom, it is said, the races of mankind are de- 
scended. Irej^ another brother, was the founder 
of the race of Iran, i. e., the native Persians : Tur^ 
of the Turans, their neighbors on the north-east, 
between which two races w^as an incessant warfare. f 
It comprises all the languages of Asia and Europe 
not included in the two preceding families, except, 

* Languages spoken at the Seat of War, p. 23. 
t Whitney, Language, etc., p. 325. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 219 

perhaps, the Chinese and its dialects. These are 
divided into two chisses — the northern and south- 
ern. The first comprises the Tungusic, Mongolic, 
Turkic, Samoyedic, and Finnic, and occupies the 
regions to the north and west of China, as far as the 
Euxine and Mediterranean. To this division belong 
also the dialects of the Lapps and the Finns of 
Northern Europe, and the Magyars of Hungary. 
Its limits have been greatly extended in modern 
times by the conquests ot the Turks, thus encroach- 
ing on the original territories of the Semites and the 
Aryans. The southern division comprises the Gan- 
getic, i. e., the Thibetian and other dialects called 
Trans-Himmalayan and Sub-Himmalayan ; theTaic, 
or the dialects of Siam ; the Lohitic, i. e., dialects of 
Assam, Arakan, Burmah, and some others ; the Ma- 
layic, comprising the languages of the Malayan 
peninsula and the Polynesian Islands ; and the 
Tamulic, or the languages of Southern India, as the 
Canarese, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, and other 
minor dialects.* 

♦ Moller, Sci. of Lang. vol. i. p. 39S. For the last mentioned 
group, see likewise Caldwell's Comp. Grammar of the Dravidia 1 
Languages. But Professor Mliller is the authoritj' for the general 
classification and arrangement of this southern group, as well us 
for that of the northern. In regard to the last-mentioned group, 
the Tamulic, faithfulness to the subject requires me to add partic- 
ularly, that the affiliation of those dialects with the Scythian or 



220 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Such is the classification of languages made by 
the masters in philology, as indicated in the trip- 
artite division just named. In this the Chinese 
and the body of languages in Central Africa and in 
America — the speech of more than one third of 
mankind — - are confessedly not included. Those 
also which are placed in the third family — the Tu- 
ranian — are not grouped there, certainly not all of 
them, because of internal resemblances or affinities, 
but because they do not belong to either of the 
others. (Miiller, p. 86.) These facts show how 
exceedingly imperfect the science of comparative 
philology still is, and ought to abate some of the 
confidence with which conclusions are drawn from 
it contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures. As 
it now stands, this classification, so far as respects 
the third family, is little more than a confession of 
ignorance as to the real character of the languages 
themselves. Some groups under it are, perhaps, 

Turanian languages is doubted by some of our first linguists. 
Such affiliation can not, indeed, be positively denied, but the evi- 
dence is not regarded as conclusive. See some very judicious 
remarks on this point by Professor W. D. Whitney, Journ. Am. 
Or. Soc. vol. vii. p. 296, seq., appended to a valuable resume of 
Caldwell's work above named, by Rev. E. Webb. 

After all, we have here only.another striking illustration of the 
indefiniteness of the classification of languages under the third 
division — the Turanian. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 221 

sufficiently defined to be set by themselves, others 
by themselves ; yet the vast majority of the dialects 
art? too little known or studied to have their true lin- 
guistic characteristics fully defined.* 

There is still another classification of languages, 
founded upon their internal structure, which ought 
to be mentioned here. It divides them into three 
primary families, distinguished by the characteristics 
of their leading words. These are stated by Pro- 
fessor Miiller as follows : — 

" I. Roots may be used as words, each root pre- 
serving its full independence. 

" 2. Two roots may be joined together to form 

* Since the above was written, the admirable work of Pro- 
fessor W. D. Whitney, "Languuge, and the Studj' of Language," 
has appeared, and I am pleased at finding my own opinions on 
many important points so much in accord with those he has 
expressed in this volume. He speaks rather disparagingly of the 
results of comparative philology, — as much so, perhaps, as I 
have myself. He of course accords a proper value to what has 
been settled by linguistic study respecting the Semitic and Euro- 
pean families of languages, but is not satisfied with the classifi- 
cation of philologists in regard to the other languages. He pre- 
fers the term Scythian to Turaniati for designating the third 
family (so called), and thinks the evidence on which dialects 
have been grouped together often unsatisfactory. He is emi- 
nently conservative. I approve of his use of Scythian for Tura- 
nian, and can not but wish he had done more to solve the problem 
of relationship between that vast number of dialects ranked in 
this family. 



222 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

words, and in these compounds one root may lose 
its independence. 

" 3. Two roots may be joined together to form 
words, and in these compounds both roots may lose 
their independence." * 

The first class gives rise to monosyllabic lan- 
guages. These are " wholly unsusceptible of gram- 
matical mutations ; there is no formal distinction 
between verb and noun, substantive and adjective, 
preposition and conjunction ; there are no inflections, 
no case- or person-terminations of any kind ; the 
bare root forms the sole and whole substance of the 
language." f The following specimen of a Chinese 
sentence will illustrate this :" King speak: Sage! 
not far thousand mile and come; also will have use 
gain me realm, hey?"' That is, "The king spoke, 
O Sage, since thou dost not count a thousand miles 
far to come, wilt thou not too have brought some- 
thing for the weal of my realm?" % 

The second class characterizes what are called 
agglutinative languages. Of the two or more 
roots of which its words are composed, one ex- 
pressing the substantive idea is not liable to varia- 
tion, and the others are somewhat loosely attached 

* Lectures, first series, eighth lecture. 

t Smith's Bib. Diet. art. Confusion of Tongues. 

X Schleicher's Lang, of Europe, quoted bj Whitney, p. 331. 



• THE HUMAN RACE. 223 

or glued to it to express the various modifications, 
the latter losing their independent form in so doing, 
as joy-ful'ly^ from the three roots joy^ fulU and 
like. So in Turkish, to the root sev^ signifying 
love, are joined five formative roots, making the 
word sev'zsk-dzr-zl-eme-mek, i. e., not capable of 
being made to love one another.* 

The third class composes what are termed inflec- 
tional languages, where all the roots lose their inde- 
pendent form, and by fusion with each other con- 
stitute a new, indivisible word, as the root true^ with 
its prefix and affixes, makes the word untruthful- 
ness, etc. 

Comparing these two modes of classification with 
each other, it is found that the Aryan and Semitic 
families are, for the most part, inflectional lan- 
guages ; the Turanian, including the dialects of Cen- 
tral Africa and America, agglutinative ; and the 
Chinese, and its related dialects, monosyllabic. At 
the same time, words of each type are found more 
or less in them all. This fact, and the importance 
of it to the discussion in hand, will be again ad- 
verted to presently. 

The question now recurs to us. How does the 
existence of these numerous families and groups of 
languages bear upon the antiquity of man on the 

* Whitney, p. 319. 



224 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

earth? Do not the radical differences between 
th^ni — differences traceable back beyond the pe- 
riod of authentic history^ — prove that they could 
not have had a common origin in any one primitive 
tongue ; or, if that v^ere intrinsically possible, that it 
could not have been within the space of time which 
the Bible chronology allows subsequent to the date 
of Noah? To this inquiry we may reply, — 

I. There stands at the very threshold of that 
period the recorded fact of a miraculous " confusion 
of tongues ^^ by which the antecedent speech was 
broken up into a variety of dialects, each unintelli- 
gible to those who spoke the others. Before that 
time, " the whole earth was of one language and 
of one lip" (Gen. xi. i, margin), i. e., probably 
one in substance and one in utterance. To defeat 
their design of building a city and tower, which 
should preserve them as one people in one locality 
forever, God "confounded their language, that they 
might not understand one another's speech." And 
this event is distinctly assigned as the reason why 
the one family was broken up and scattered into the 
various parts of the earth. Here, then, is an ade- 
quate and complete explanation of the origin of 
diversity in human speech. We know not, indeed, 
precisely what was the thing done, whether a 
change was wrought in the vocabulary or the gram^ 



THE HUMAN RACE. 225 

mar of language, or in pronunciation only, nor 
into how many portions the one common speech 
was divided. From the analogy of other miracles, 
we should judge it probable that no more was done 
than was needful to effect the purpose in view. 
There is always, so to speak, a husbanding of 
divine power, by which the contravention or tran- 
scending of nature's laws is made as slight as possi- 
ble. We may well suppose, that while real changes 
were introduced into the forms of language, its sub- 
stance should have remained essentially the same. 
But be this as it may, here is the great fact of 
diversity accounted for. Neither the degree of that 
diversity, nor the length of time required for it 
on natural principles, affords any further difficulty. 

And this fact, let me remark further, is to be 
taken with the Scripture chronology, both to explain 
and confirm it. If the latter fixes the confusion 
of language and the dispersion of the nations at a 
point no more remote than a few centuries before 
the era of history, it also affords the very key 
that was needed to show how those events were 
chronologically possible. If science, so called, 
rejects the miracle, she throws away the only key 
which can solve the mystery. Let her find a 
better one if she can. 

2. In accordance with the supposition just made, 

15 



226 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

it is ascertained that under all the apparent differ- 
ences existing among languages, there is very much 
also in common between them. Our space will not 
permit us to go into details on this point. They may 
be seen in the works on comparative grammar, and 
other treatises of philology. The article in Smith's 
Dictionary of the Bible, already referred to, men- 
tions four particulars in which manifest tokens of 
unity between the families of languages may be dis- 
cerned, viz., "in the original material ovX of which 
language was formed " (monosyllabic roots) ; " in the 
stages of formation through which it has passed ; 
in the general principle of grammatical expression ; 
and, lastly, in the spirit and J)ower.disp\a,yed in the 
development of these various formations." The ar- 
ticle adds, *^ Such a result, though it does not prove 
the unity of language in respect to its radical ele- 
ments, nevertheless tends to establish the a -priori 
probability of this unity ; for if all connected with 
the forms of language may be referred to certain 
general laws, — if nothing in that department owes 
its origin to chance or arbitrary appointment, — it 
surely favors the presumption that the same principle 
would extend to the formation of the roots, which 
are the very core and kernel of language. Here, 
too, we might expect to find the operation of fixed 
laws of some kind or other producing results of a 



THE HUMAN RACE. 227 

uniform character ; here, too, actual variety may not 
be inconsistent with original unity." 

On the question of an original identity in the roots 
of the different families, it seems to be agreed by 
philologers that the time has not come for pronoun- 
cing a positive opinion. Too little is yet known 
respecting the primary elements of languages to 
warrant definite conclusions. There certainly is no 
proof that the original roots were not identical. The 
most that can be affirmed seems to be, as expressed 
by Professor Whitney, " that language affords cer- 
tain indications of doubtful value, which, taken along 
with certain other ethnological considerations, also 
of questionable pertinency, furnish ground for sus- 
pecting an ultimate relationship. The question, in 
short, is not yet ripe for settlement." * 

3. In proportion as our knowledge of the various 
families of languages increases, the differences be- 
tween them dimmish, and new affinities come to 
light. It is ascertained that classes are not sepa- 
rated from each other so wddely, and by such sharp 
lines of demarcation, as at first appeared. "The 
agglutinative languages are not wholly agglutina- 
tive; the Finnish and Turkish classes of the Ural- 
Altaian family are, in certain instances, inflectional, 
the relational adjunct being fully incorporated with 

* Language, p. 308. 



228 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the predicable stem, and having undergone a large 
amount of attrition for that purpose. Nor, again, 
are the inflectional languages wholly inflectional ; 
Hebrew, for instance, abounds with agglutinative 
forms, and also avails itself largely of separate par- 
ticles for the expression of relational ideas. Our 
own language, though classed as inflectional, retains 
nothing more than the vestiges of inflection, and is, 
in many respects, as isolating and juxtapositional 
as any language of that class." * Thus- not unfre- 
quently resemblances and aflSnities are disclosed 
where they had not been suspected. I have already 
mentioned the results following the discovery of the 
Sanskrit and its literature, this proving to be the 
" missing link " requisite to complete the chain of 
connection between.the various members of the Indo- 
European family. In the same way, what is of late 
taking the name of the Hamitic group, or, as Bun- 
sen denominated it, Kkamism, gives indications of 
becoming a connecting link between the Aryan and 
Semitic families.! Hence, too, the difficulties of 
classification which are found in many cases, cer- 

* Smith's Diet, of the Bible, art. Confusion of Tongices, 
t " The old Egyptian clearly stands between the Semitic and 
the Indo-European, for its forms and roots cannot be explained 
by either of them singly, but are evidently a combination of the 
two." — Bunsen, Egypt" s Place^ etc. p. lo. See also the remark 
of Osburn, cited on pp. i6i, 162. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 229 

tain languages showing resemblances in opposite 
directions, leading them to be placed by one lin- 
guist in one class and by another in another. It is 
impossible to say, when all existing languages shall 
have been sufficiently studied, and their ultimate 
elements and principles of formation are known, 
how nearly they ma}^ be brought into affinity with 
each other. We hold the fact to be a significant 
one, that the tendencies are all one way, toward an 
original unity among the whole. 

4. Languages, while in their unwritten and un- 
cultivated state, are liable to rafid changes. There 
being nothing to retain them in their ancient forms, 
they are free to adapt themselves to the varying cir- 
cumstances and necessities of the people who use 
them. There is, first, the law of "growth," already 
adverted to. In its earliest stage, language was 
monosyllabic, its w^ords short, without grammatical 
variations, and with the simplest possible syntax — a 
fit vehicle for the simple thoughts of a primitive age. 
But gradually, as men's experience was enlarged, and 
new ideas were developed, this monosyllabic speech 
began to take on a more complex form, modifying 
and relational words attached or glued themselves 
to the roots, till another phase of language was 
reached, sufficiently removed from the former to 
rank it in a distinct class — the agglutinative. Later 



230 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Still, by a continuation of the same process, the in- 
flectional stage was reached, differing as much from 
the last as that did from the original. "Among 
all languages, ancient and modern," says M. Maury, 
'^ some have passed through the three phases ; others 
have been arrested in their development. Thus 
agglutination includes the monosyllabic state, and 
inflection includes both the agglutinative and the 
monosyllabic states. Exactly as among species of 
animals, some remain as elementary organisms, 
whilst others progress, during the period of gesta- 
tion, from that organism to a higher and more de- 
veloped organization." * 

Other changes also, equally important, have oc- 
curred in the ever-changing circumstances of man- 
kind. Old languages have been broken up, and 
their fragments, assuming each a vitality of their 
own, have become separate living dialects, as the 
modern Romance languages of Europe have sprung 
from the Latin. Two or more languages, under 
outward force, have been compressed into one, as our 
own tongue sprung from the fusion of the Saxon and 
the Norman. And these changes have often taken 
place with great rapidity. In the instance last men- 
tioned, two languages, greatly dissimilar in mate- 

* Quoted in Anc. Hist, of the East, by Lenormant and Che- 
vallier, p. 67. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 23 1 

rials and structure, were, in a little more than 'three 
centuries, wrought into a third, so unlike both that it 
would be wholly unintelligible to those who spoke 
either of the parent tongues. 

Among savage nations this susceptibility to change 
is still greater. "We read," says Miiller, "of mis- 
sionaries in Central America who attempted to write 
down the language of savage tribes, and who com- 
piled, with great care, a dictionary of all the words 
they could lay hold of. Returning to the same 
tribes after the lapse of only ten years, they found 
that this dictionary had become antiquated and use- 
less. Old words had sunk to the ground, and new 
ones had risen to the surface, and, to all outward 
appearance, the language was completely changed." 
Again, he refers to tribes in the north of Asia, who 
" though really speaking the same language, have 
produced so many words and forms peculiar to each 
tribe, that even within the limits of twelve or twenty 
German miles, communication among them becomes 
extremely difficult." In a limited district in the 
mountain ranges of the Irrawaddy, " were collected 
no less than twelve dialects, some of them spoken 
by no more than thirty or forty families, yet so differ- 
ent from the rest as to be unintelligible to the nearest 
neighbor." * 

* Science of Lang., vol. ii. pp. 62, 63. 



232 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

With such evidences before us of the susceptibility 
• of language to change, we have no need to resort to 
the theory of a plurality of origin to account for 
all the diversities now existing in human speech. 
Growth alone is sufficient to have originated the 
differing characteristics of the three leading fami- 
lies. If we suppose that the ancestors of the Chi- 
nese, for instance, and the other tribes of Eastern 
Asia, departed from the original abodes at a peri- 
od when language was still monosyllabic, we are 
enabled to see that this archaic type of speech should 
have prevailed and been perpetuated among them. 
This principle is distinctly recognized by all the 
leading philologists, though perhaps not to the ex- 
tent which facts would warrant. Bunsen refers to 
it in numerous instances in explaining the differ- 
ences between groups of dialects. Miiller, upon this 
ground, attempts to show the relative ages of the 
Turanian races. Muir remarks that " the ancestors 
of the Indians and Persians appear to have lived 
together as one nation to a later period than the 
other branches of the Aryan race." * We would 
not claim that this alone is sufficient to explain the 
whole problem before us, but it is enough to relieve 
us of its chief difficulties. 

The results, then, to which we arrive on this sub- 

* Sanskrit Texts, Part. II. chap, ii. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 233 

ject are twofold — negative and positive : i . Com- 
parative Philology has not proved, and can not 
prove, that all the languages of man did not have a 
common origin. 2. She has proved that all the 
more important languages are spoken by nations 
whose ancestors were the direct descendants of 
Noah ; and she exhibits many facts, both as to the 
materials and the form of all languages, which show 
traces of such original unity. Or, in the words of 
Professor Miiller, — 

" I . Nothing necessitates the admission of different 
independent beginnings for the material elements 
of the Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of 
speech ; nay, it is possible even now to point out 
radicals, which, under various changes and dis- 
guises, have been current in these branches ever 
since their first separation. 

" 2. Nothing necessitates the admission of differ- 
ent beginnings for \.h.Q formal elements of the Tura- 
nian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of speech ; and 
although it is not possible to derive the Aryan sys- 
tem of grammar from the Semitic, or the Semitic 
from the Aryan, we can perfectly understand how, 
either through individual influences, or by the wear 
and tear of speech in its own continuous working, 
the different systems of Asia and Europe may have 
been produced." * 

* Science of Lang., vol. i. p. 340. 



234 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

And says Professor Whitney, " Our general con- 
clusion, which may be looked on as incontrovertibly 
established, is this : If the tribes of men are of differ- 
ent parentage, their languages could not be expected 
to be more unlike than they in fact are ; while, on 
the other hand, if all mankind are of one blood, their 
tongues need not be more alike than we actually find 
them to be." * 

* Language, p. 394. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 235 



CHAPTER X. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM TRADITION. 

Traditions of Primitive Ages to be expected. — Such Traditions 
found to exist. — Statement of Dr. Smjth. — Those only of 
Value in the Argument which are not derived from the Bible. 
— I. Traditions of one God. — 2. Of the Creation. — 3. Of 
the Garden of Eden. — 4. Of the Temptation and Fall. — 
5. Of the Weekly Division of Time. —6. Of the Deluge of 
.Noah. 

If all men have descended from a single origin, 
and that so late as the flood of Noah, it might be 
expected that they would preserve some traditions 
of that fact, and of the chief events occurring in the 
infancy of the race. We should anticipate, indeed, 
that these would vary according to the genius and 
the outer history of the different nations, some re- 
taining more vivid reminiscences than others, and all 
of them, perhaps, holding them in forms more or less 
disguised, with such additions or other modifications 
as might naturally arise in the lapse of centuries. 
And wherever such traditions are found, clearly de- 
fined and of unmistakable import, they afford strong 



236 'ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

collateral evidence as to the origin of the people who 
entertain them. 

Such traditions, in fact, exist. " The primitive 
condition of mankind," says Dr. Smyth ; " the purity 
and happiness of the golden age ; the location of 
man in a garden ; the tree of knowledge of good and 
evil ; the influence of a serpent in the seduction and 
ruin of man ; the consequent curse inflicted on man, 
on woman, and upon the earth ; the promise of an 
incarnate Redeemer; traditions respecting Cain 
and Abel, Enoch and Noah ; the longevity of the 
ancient patriarchs, and the existence often genera- 
tions from Adam to Noah ; the growing deteriora- 
tions of human nature; the reduction of man's age 
and power ; the deluge and destruction of all man- 
kind except a single family ; the building of an ark, 
and its resting on a mountain, and the flying of the 
dove ; the building of the Tower of Babel, and the 
miraculous confusion of languages ; the institution 
of sacrifices ; the rainbow, as the sign and symbol 
of destruction and of hope ; the fable of the man in 
the moon — which is equally known in opposite 
quarters of the globe ; the great mother. Who is a 
my thus of the ark ; the hermaphrodite unity of all 
the gods and goddesses, from a mistaken notion of 
the creation of Adam and Eve ; the nature and pur- 
port of the mysteries in the Old and New World ; 



THE HUMAN RACE. 237 

groves, and mountains, and caves, as places of wor- 
ship ; traditions also of Sodom and Gomorrah, of 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and the Red 
Sea ; the division of time by weeks ; and the expla- 
nation of the future conflagration of the earth ; — 
these, and many other facts which lie at the founda- 
tion of sacred history, and the earliest events of 
humanity, are all found imbedded, like the fossils of 
the earth, in the traditionary legends, both written 
and oral, of every tribe and people under the whole 
heavens." * 

I am inclined to think that this language is too 
strong, certainly as affirming the existence of these 
traditions among every tribe and people. There may 
be casual resemblances in some single particulars 
which have no proper historical character, just as there 
are striking coincidences in many facts of the natu- 
ral world, which have no vital connection with each 
other. It must be borne in mind, also, that only 
those traditions which have not been derived from 
the Bible itself, have any value in this argument. 
The influence of the Jewish and Christian religions 
has been very great and very wide in the world, and 
many things contained in them may have made their 
way thence within the knowledge of surrounding 
nations. Such, for instance, was probably the gen- 

* T. Smyth, On the Unity of the Human Races, pp. 237, 238. 



238 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

eral expectation of the advent of some illustrious 
personage, about the time of Christ, who was to be 
a new Benefactor to the world.* It is only inde- 
pendent traditions, which have come down from 
remote antiquity within the bosom of the nations 
themselves, that can avail anything for proving their 
common origin. And of these, without going to the 
extent of the writer just quoted, there are not a few 
of great interest and importance, which I will men- 
tion. 

I. The existence. of one supreme and eternal God, 
the First Cause of all things. — " Those men," says 
Jablonski, '^ who were most distinguished for wisdom 
among the Egyptians, acknowledged God to be a 
certain unbegotten Eternal Spirit, prior to all things 
which exist; who created, preserves, contains, per- 
vades, and vivifies everything ; who is the spirit of 
the universe, but the guardian and protector of 
men." f Many of the Greek poets and philosophers 
held the same truth. In one of the Orphic Frag- 
ments preserved by Proclus, we find it expressly 
declared that " there is one Power, one Deity, the 
great Governor of all things." The verses which 
were sung in the Eleusinian mysteries contained 

* Hesiod, Works and Days, 109; Ovid, Met. i. 89; Virgil, 
Eel. iv., etc. 

t Brande's Encyclopoedi^, art. Monotheism, 



THE HUMAN RACE. 239 

the following passage: "Pursue thy path rightly, 
and contemplate the King of the world. He is one 
and of himself alone, and to that One all things 
have owed their being. He encompasses them. No 
mortal hath beheld him ; but he sees everything." * 
Says Professor Wilson, "The Vedas are authority 
for the existence of one Divine Being, supreme over 
the universe, and existing before all worlds. In the 
beginning this all [the universe] was in darkness. 
He, the Supreme, was alone, without a second. He 
reflected, I am one ; I will become many. Will was 
conceived in the divine mind, and creation ensued." 
In the Vishnu Purana it is said, "That which is im- 
perceptible, undecaying, inconceivable, unborn, in- 
exhaustible, indescribable; which has neither form, 
nor hands, nor feet ; which is almighty, omnipresent, 
eternal ; the cause of ajl things, and without cause ; 
permeating all, itself unpenetrated, and from which 
all things proceed ; — that is Brahma." | 

2. The Creation of the World and of Man, — 
" The Greeks, in their legends, represented Prome- 
theus as playing the part of a demiurgus, or secondary 
creator, who molded from clay the first individuals of 
our species, and gave them life by means of the fire 
which he stole from heaven. In the cosmogony of 

* Brande's Encyclopoedia, art. Monotheism, 
t Wilson's Translation, p. 642. 



240 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Peru the first man created by the divine power 
was called Alpa Camasca, ' animated earth.' Among 
the tribes of North America, the Mandans believed 
that the Great Spirit formed two figures of clay, 
which he dried and animated by the breath of his 
mouth ; the one received the name of the 'first man,' 
the other that of ' companion.' The great god of 
Tahiti, Toeroa, made man of red earth, and the 
Dyacks of Borneo, stubbornly opposed to all Mos- 
lem influences, repeated from generation to genera- 
tion that man had been formed from the earth." * 

The following view of the Hindu cosmogony I 
take from the Laws of Manu, written probably in 
the seventh or eighth' century before Christ. It 
is regarded by the Hindus as a revelation- from 
Brahma. 

" This universe existed -ojaly in darkness, imper- 
ceptible, undefinable, undiscoverable by reason, un- 
discovered, as if it were wholly immersed in sleep. 
Then the self-existing power, himself undiscovered, 
but making this world discernible with five elements 
and other principles, appeared with undiminished 
glory, dispelling the gloom. He whom the mind 
alone can perceive, whose essence eludes the exter- 
nal organs, who has no visible parts, who exists 
from eternity ; even He, the soul of all beings, whom 

* Anc. Hist, of the East, pp. 9, 10. 



THE HUMAN RACE. ^ 24 1 

no being can comprehend, shone forth in person. 
He having willed to produce various beings from his 
own substance, first, .with a thought, created the 
waters, and placed in them a productive seed. The 
seed became an egg, bright as gold, blazing like 
the luminary, with a thousand beams ; and in that 
egg he was born himself in the form of Brahma* 
the great forefather of all spirits. The waters are 
called Nara because they were the offspring of Nara, 
the Supreme Spirit, and as in them his first ayana 
(progress) in the character of Brahma took place, 
he is thence JVarayana (he whose place of moving 
was the waters). From that which is, the cause, not 
the object, of sense, existing everywhere in sub- 
stanee, not existing to our perception, without be- 
ginning or end, was produced the divine male, 
famed in all the worlds as Brahma. In that Qgg 
the great power sat inactive a whole year of the 
Creator, at the close of which, by his thought alone, 
he caused the 'egg to divide itself, and from its two 
divisions he framed the heaven above and the earth 
beneath ; in the midst he placed the subtile ether, 
the eight regions, and the permanent receptacle of 

* The word Brahma — the final a short as in America — is a 
neuter noun, denoting the abstract Supreme Spirit. The mascu- 
line Brahma — the final vowel having the long Italian sound of 
ah — denotes the active Creator. 
16 



242 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the waters. . . . He gave being to time and 
the divisions of time ; to the stars also, and the 
planets ; to rivers, oceans, and mountains ; to' level 
plains and uneven valleys ; to devotion, speech, 
complacency, desire, and wrath ; and to creation. 
For the sake of distinguishing action, he made a 
total difference between right and wrong. 

"That the human race might be multiplied, he 
caused the Brahman, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, 
and the Shudra (the four castes) to proceed from 
his mouth, his arm, his thigh, and his foot. Having 
divided his own substance, the mighty power be- 
came half male and half female, and from that 
female he produced Viraj, Know me, O most 
excellent Brahmans, to be that person, whom the 
male power Viraj produced by himself — Me, the 
secondary framer of all this visible world." 

The resemblances between this cosmogony and 
the Scripture account of the creation are striking. 
First, the Supreme Deity, shining forth upon the 
darkness of chaos ; then the creation of the waters ; 
the formation of the heaven above and the earth 
beneath, with the air and clouds between ; the celes- 
tial bodies, and the divisions of time ; the mountains, 
valleys, and plains ; and, lastly, man himself. It is 
remarkable, also, that, as in the Bible, the act of cre- 
ation is attributed not to the Supreme Spirit, the 



THE HUMAN RACE. 243 

Father, but to his Son. " No man hath seen God 
at any time ; the only-begotten Son, which is in the 
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." "All 
things were made by him, and without him was not 
anything made that was made." 

3. The Garden of Eden. — The Vishnu Purana 
(p. 169) describes the city of Brahma, on Mount 
Meru, in the midst of the Jambu Dwipa, the inhab- 
ited world. I do not doubt that it is a tradition of 
Eden. The account is as follows : " On the summit 
of Meru is the vast city of Brahma, extending four- 
teen thousand leagues, and renowned in heaven. 
The capital of Brahma is enclosed by the River 
Ganges, which, issuing from the foot of Vishnu, 
and washing the lunar orb, falls here from the skies, 
and, after encircling the city, divides into four 
mighty rivers, and flows in opposite directions." 

The Greeks had the fable of the garden of the 
Hesperides, which was shut in by high mountains 
on account of an oracle which predicted that, at a 
certain day, a person would come and carry off the 
golden apples that hung on a mysterious tree in the 
midst of the garden. Notwithstanding the precau- 
tions used, the hero Hercules came at last, destroyed 
the watchful serpent that kept the tree, and gathered 
the apples. This event was represented pictorially, 
the serpent being wreathed about the tree precisely 



244 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF 

as in the modern pictures of Eve's temptation. It is 
also a striking part of the legend, that Hercules is 
represented as the mortal son of Zeus, the Supreme 
God, and was attempted to be destroyed in his in^ 
fancy by two serpents, which he slew. 

4. The Temptation and Fall of Man. — The story 
of Pandora is the Grecian legend of Eve. She is 
represented as the first woman, exceedingly beauti- 
ful, sent by Zeus to be a punishment to man for the 
stolen fire of Prometheus. The gods each bestowed 
on her a gift, such as beauty, cunning, etc., which 
she was to use for the ruin of mankind. Prome- 
theus had shut up in a box all the diseases and woes 
which the anger of the gods had denounced, but 
Pandora, lifting the cover of the box, let them loose 
upon the world, hope only remaining behind. The 
Chinese held that man was originally innocent and 
happy, and free from disease and death. In an evil 
hour he yielded to flattery, or, according to others, 
the inordinate thirst of knowledge, or, others still, 
the temptation of a woman, and sinned. He lost his 
purity, his self-control, and his intellectual pre-emi- 
nence, and the beasts, birds, and reptiles became his 
enemies.* Similar traditions exist among the wor- 
shippers of the Grand Lama, and the Buddhists of 
Ceylon, and are recounted, also, in the Vishnu 

* Memoires Chinoises, vol. i. 107. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 



245 



Purana of the Hindus. The ancient Persians had, 
in a sacred book called Bundehesh, a story of the 
temptation, almost exactly like that of the Bible, in 
which all the essential features are found, even to 
that of the tempter having assumed the form of a 
serpent.* 

5. The Division of Time into Weeks, — Such a 
division prevailed all over the East, from the ear- 
liest ages^ among the Assyrians, Arabs, and Egyp- 
tians. To the last-named people, Dion Cassius 
ascribes its invention. Oldendorf found it among 
tlie tribes in the interior of Africa. The Peruvians 
and Mexicans had similar periods, derived from the 
phases of the moon. Many nations have named the 
days of the week after the gods, as did our own 
pagan ancestors. Among the Hindus the word 
wara^ day, affixed to the names of the deities, con- 
stitutes the name, thus : — 



Latin. 


Saxon. 


Hindu. 


Sol, Dies Solis. 


Sun, Sunday. 


Aditya, Adityawara. 


Luna, etc. 


Moon, Monday. 


Soma, Somawara. 


Mars, " 


Tuesco, Tuesday. 


Mangala, Mangalawara. 


Mercurius, " 


Woden, Wednesday. 


Budha, Budhawara. 


Jupiter, " 


Thor, Thursday. 


Brahaspati, Brahaspatwara. 


Venus, " 


Freya, Friday. 


Shuhra, Shuhrawara. 


Saturnus, " 


Saeter, Saturday. 


Shani, Shaniwara. 



♦. Anc. Hist, of the East, vol. i. p. 10. 



246 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Attempts have indeed been made to show that 
this world-wide observance is to be accounted for 
from n'atural causes, the observed phases of the 
moon, the occult properties of numbers, or, as 
Proudhon calls it, a certain "spontaneous genius, a 
sort of magnetic vision^ which discovered primitive 
arts, developed language, invented writing, and 
created systems of religion and philosophy." * Far 
easier and more probable is the view which is ad- 
mitted by nearly all writers, that it is due to a uni- 
versal tradition, which has descended from the pri- 
mary institution of the Sabbath, as recorded by 
Moses. 

6. But the one tradition which, perhaps, more 
than any other, has been absolutely universal, both 
in ancient and modern times, is that of a jlood^ sent 
upon the world in punishment for the wickedness 
of man. Our space will not permit us to dwell at 
length on this very curious subject, and we can 
do little more than to allude to many of its details.- 

The Mexicans and Peruvians preserved this tra- 
dition in a form strikingly resembling that of the 
Bible. "The first age, called Atonatiuh, i. e., 4he 
sun of the waters,' was terminated by a universal 
deluge. The Noah of the Mexican cataclysm is 
Coxcox, called by some people Teo Cipactli, or 

* Kitto's Bib. Cycl., ne-vy edition, art. Sabbath, 



THE HUMAN RACE. 247 

Tezpi. He saved himself, with his wife, Xochiqiiet- 
zal, in a bark, or, according to other traditions, a 
raft of cypress-wood. . . . It is said that Tezpi 
embarked in a spacious vessel with his wife, his 
children, and many animals, and such seeds as were 
necessary for the subsistence of mankind. When 
the Great Spirit, Tezcatlicopa, ordered the waters to 
subside, Tezpi sent out of the ark a vulture. That 
bird, which lived on dead bodies, did not come 
back, on account of the great number of corpses 
scattered on the recently dried earth. Tezpi sent 
other birds, among which the humming-bird alone 
returned, holding in his mouth a branch with leaves.. 
Then Tezpi, seeing that the soil was beginning to 
be covered with new verdure, came out of his ship 
on the mountain Colhuacan." * Traditions of a sim- 
ilar character are found among all the North Amer- 
ican tribes. 

Among the ancient Greeks, mention was made 
of two such catastrophes — the first called the deluge 
^^ Ogyges, which was placed by Varro about 1600 
years before the first Olympiad, i. e., B. C. 2376, 
which differs from the Hebrew date of Noah only 
twenty-eight years. This, however, was only a 
local inundation, of no great extent, it being the 
overflow of the Lake Copais, which submerged the 

* Anc. Hist, of the East, vol. i. p. 17, 



248 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

valle}'' of Boeotia. The other, which far more 
nearly resembled the Scripture narrative of the 
deluge, was called the flood of Deucalion. Even 
Bunsen is constrained to say, "Our previous re- 
searches will not permit us to doubt that the oldest 
Hellenic tradition about the flood of Deucalion was 
a legendary reminiscence of that great historical 
deluge." The account of it, as given by Lucian, is 
as follows : — 

" I have heard, among the Greeks, the story of 
Deucalion, which they relate respecting him. They 
fable it as follows : The present generation of men 
is not the §ame as the former. That generation all 
perished ; the men of the present are immediately 
descended from Deucalion. Mankind, having be- 
come exceedingly haughty, were lawless, for they 
did not regard their oaths, perform the rights of hos- 
pitalit}^ or spare the suppliants. On account of 
these things, a great calamity came upon them ; 
the earth suddenly poured forth floods of water, 
great rains fell, the rivers were swollen, and the 
sea overflowed, until all became submerged under 
water, and all flesh perished. Deucalion alone of 
men was preserved for a second race ; this was on 
account both of his justice and piety. His deliver- 
ance was in this wise : Having put his sons and 
their wives into a great ark, which he had prepared. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 249 

he went in himself, and the animals, swine, horses, 
lions, and whatever else lived on the earth, all came 
to him in pairs. He received them all, and was not 
injured by them, but there was great harmony 
throughout. In this one ark they all floated as long 
as the waters prevailed. These things are related 
by the Greeks respecting Deucalion." * 

The sequel to this story represents the ark to have 
floated on the waters nine days, when it landed on 
Mount Parnassus, or, according to others, on Mount 
Athos. When the flood had subsided, Deucalion 
offered a sacrifice to Jupiter, who sent to him Mer- 
cury, with a promise that he would grant any prayer 
he might offer. Deucalion asked that Jupiter would 
restore mankind. He and his wife Pyrrha were 
directed to. cover their heads and throw the bones 
of their mother behind them. After some doubts 
and scruples as to the meaning of this command, 
they agreed that the bones of their mother must be 
the stones of the earth. They accordingly threw 
these behind them, and those thrown by Deucalion 
became men, and those by Pyrrha women. From 
these the present family of mankind are descended. 

Still more remarkable than this is the Phrygian 
tradition relating to the city of Apamea, where, it is 
said, the ark rested after the flood. The "City itself 

♦ Lucian's Works, Paris, 1840, p. 735. 



250 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

was anciently called "Kibotos,"or the Ark, and a 
medal was struck on which a representation of that 
vessel was shown, with two persons going forth 
from it, and two birds, one flying, the other rest- 
ing upon it, with the name NSlE inscribed on the 
side. 

Among the Chaldeans, frequent mention is made 
of the flood of Xisuthrus, of which Berosus gives 
the following account : " After the death of Arda- 
tus, his son Xisuthrus reigned 18 sari. In his time 
occurred a great deluge, which is thus described : 
The deity Kronus appeared to him in his sleep, and 
made known to him that upon the 15th day of the 
month Daesius there would be a flood by which man- 
kind would be destroyed. He therefore commanded 
him to write a history of the beginning, progress, 
and conclusion of all things, and bury it in the city 
of the sun at Sippara ; also to build a vessel, and 
take with him into it his friends and relatives, with 
food and drink, and the different animals, both birds 
and quadrupeds, preparing all for the voyage. Hav- 
ing asked the deity whither he was to sail, he was 
answered, * To the gods.' Offering up a prayer for 
the good of mankind, he obeyed the divine injunc- 
tion, and built a vessel five stadia in length and two 
in breadth. Into this he put everything he had pre- 
pared, with his wife, children, and friends. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 25 1 

" After the flood had been long upon the earth, 
and had somewhat abated, Xisuthrus sent out cer- 
tain birds, which, not finding any food, or place 
whereon to rest their feet, returned to the vessel. 
After some days, he sent forth birds a second time. 
These returned with their feet smeared with mud. 
He sent them forth a third time, and they returned 
no more. From this Xisuthrus knew that the earth 
had appeared above the waters, and, making an 
opening in the sides of the vessel, he perceived that 
it was stranded upon a mountain. He then left the 
vessel, with his wife, and daughter, and the pilot, 
and, having worshiped the earth, he built an altar, 
and offered sacrifice to the gods. Then, with those 
who had come out of the vessel with him, he disap- 
peared. 

" Those that remained in the vessel, finding that 
Xisuthrus and his company did not return, went out 
to seek him, calling him loudly by name. They 
saw him no more, but they heard his voice in the 
air commanding them to pay proper regard to reli- 
gion, for he, on account of his piety, had gone to 
dwell with the gods, and his wife, his daughter, and 
the pilot, had been made partakers of the same 
honor. He further directed them to repair to Baby- 
lon, and, as had been commanded, search for the 
books he had buried at Sippara, and give them to 



252 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

mankind. They were then in the country of Ar- 
menia. Having heard these words, they, too, sacri- 
ficed to the gods, and proceeded to Babylon. 

" Of this vessel, thus stranded in Armenia, it is 
said that a part still remains in the Corey raean moun- 
tains of Armenia, and that the pepple, scraping off 
the bitumen with which it was coated, carry it away 
to keep it for charms and amulets. The comrades 
of Xisuthrus., having arrived at Babylon, dug up 
the writings buried at Sippara ; they also built cities 
and temples, and Babylon was again inhabited." * 

The resemblance between this account and that 
given in the Hebrew Scriptures is very striking. It 
has been suggested f that Berosus was acquainted 
with the latter, and drew his statement from them. 
There is no evidence, however, of this fact. On the 
contrary, while his narrative in general so much 
resembles that of Moses, there is sufficient discrep- 
ancy in details to show that he could not have bor- 
rowed it from him. It is much more probable that 
he derived the incidents of his story from traditions, 
either oral or written, preserved at Babylon, which 
embodied the memory of an event common to the 
history of all nations. 

The Chinese preserve a striking tradition of the 

* Cory's Ancient Fragments. 

t Smith's Diet. Or. and Rom. Biog., art. Berosus. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 253 

flood, which they say took place in the reign of 
Fuh-hi, 4000 years B. C. He, his wife, three 
sons, and three daughters, alone escaped, and 
from these the whole circle of the universe was 
repeopled. Dr. GutzlafF relates that he saw in one 
of the Buddhist temples, " in beautiful stucco, the 
scene where Kwan-Yin, the goddess of mercy, 
looks down from heaven upon the lonely Noah 
in his ark, amidst the raging waves of the deluge, 
with the dolphins swimming round, as his last 
means of safety, and the dove, with an olive 
branch in its beak, flying toward the vessel. 
Nothing could have exceeded the beauty of the 
execution." * 

It has been frequently said (by Lepsius and 
others) that there was no trace of 'the tradition of 
a deluge among the ancient Egyptians, the only 
flood of which they knew anything being the 
harbinger of fertility and plenty. This statement, 
however, is fully refuted by Osburn. He says, 
as to there being " no trace of Noah or the deluge 
in the hieroglyphic legends, we have no hesita- 
tion whatever in stating our conviction that Lep- 
sius is mistaken. Our proof is a very direct and 
plain appeal to the senses. . . . It is to be 
found in the name of one of the most ancient gods 

* Smith's Bib. Diet, art. Noah. 



254 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

of Egypt, who was entitled 'the father of the gods,' 
' the giver of mythic Hfe to all beneath him.' Birch 
has truly identified this god with water. He was 
in reality the mythic impersonation of the annual 
overflow of the Nile. His name is written y\ \r-J 
. . . Champollion and Birch identified the name 
of this god with the word Q K , nou or nh^ which 
signifies * the primordial water,' * the abyss.' How 
it is possible not to recognize in this idol the apothe- 
osis of the patriarch Noah (Hebrew, N-h or Nuh), 
we must confess ourselves unable to understand, es- 
pecially when we call to mind that so indissolubly 
was the name of Noah linked with the remembrance 
of the general deluge, that it was afterward called 
by the Hebrews ' the waters of Noah.' (Isa. iv. 9. )" * 
Nowhere, however, is the tradition of the flood 
more remarkable for its conformity to the Mosaic 
narrative than in the Hindu Vedas, which relate the 
Avataras, or mca.rna.tions of Vishnu. It is gener- 
ally agreed that the first three of these owe their 
origin to that tradition. The first is called the 
Afafsya, or Fish- AvRiSLva., The legend is found in 
the Mahabharata, one of the great epic poems of the 
Sanskrit. It is likewise repeated in several of the 
Puranas, with slight variations. The substance of 

* Monum. Hist, of Egypt, vol. i. pp. 239, 240. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 255 

it is, that Brahma, — in the Puranas, Vishnu, — as- 
suming the form of a fish, informs Manu, a holy 
sage, that the earth is to be overwhelmed by a flood 
of waters, and directs him to build a ship, in which 
himself and seven other holy sages, with the living 
seeds of all things, will be preserved. When well 
secured in the great ship, the deity would appear in 
the form of a fish. The holy sage was to fasten the 
vessel to the fish's horn, and it would then ride safe' 
over the turbulent waters. All this took place as 
predicted, and the ship, with its precious freight, 
rested at last on the loftiest peak of the Himalaya 
Mountains. 

But the points of resemblance between the Hindu 
legend and the Mosaic account will best be seen 
from an extract. It is taken from the poetic version 
of Milman, late professor of poetry in Oxford Uni- 
versity. Though clothed in poetic language, it 
appears to be a correct version of the original, pre- 
serving at the same time, in good degree, its meas- 
ure and form of verse. 

Passing over the introduction, which contains 
some unimportant particulars respecting the manner 
in which the fish-form deity was introduced to Manu,* 

* The name Manuja, Manu-born, as the appellative of the 
human race (in Sanskrit books) is from Manu; from thence the 
Gothic Manu, which we have preserved. Manu is the represen- 
tative of man. — Alibnaji's Versiofi, p. 11. 



256 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the holy sage, the account is as follows — the fish 
continuing his divine directions : — 

" When the awful time approaches, 

hear from me what thou must do. 
In a little time, O blessed, 

all this firm and seated earth, 
All that moves upon its surface, 

shall a deluge sweep away. 
Near it comes, of all creation 

the ablution day is near; 
Therefore what I now forewarn thee 

may thy highest weal secure. 
All the fixed and all the moving, 

all that stirs, or stirreth not, 
Lo, of all the time approaches, 

the tremendous time of doom. 
Build thyself a ship, O Manu ! 

strong with cables well prepared, 
And thyself, with the seven sages, 

mighty Manu, enter in. 
All the living seeds of all things, 

by the Brahmans named of yore, 
Place thou first within thy vessel, 

vrell secured, divided well. 
From thy ship keep watch, O hermit, 

watch for me as I draw near ; 
Horned shall I swim before thee; 

by my horn thoul't know me well. 
This the work thou must accomplish. 

I depart ; so fare thee well. 
Over those tumultuous waters 

none without mine aid can sail. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 257 

Doubt not thou, O lofty minded, 

of my warning speech the truth.' 

To the fish thus answered Manu ; 

* All that thou requirest I will do.' " 

Manu, having done as directed, and launched his 
vessel on the sea with its precious freight, the fish 
appears, and the vessel is bound to his head, and — 

*' Dancing with the tumbling billows, 

dashing through the roaring spray, 
Tossed about with winds tumultuous, 

in the vast and heaving sea, 
Like a trembling, drunken woman, 

reeled that ship, O king of men. 
Earth was seen no more, no region, 

nor the intermediate space; 
All around a waste of waters, 

water all, and air, and sky. , 
In the whole world of creation, 

princely son of Bharata, 
None was seen, but those seven sages, 

Manu only and the fish. 
Years on years, and still unwearied 

drew that fish the bark along, 
Till at length it came, where lifted 

Himavan its loftiest peak. 
There at length it came, and smiling, 

thus the fish addressed the sage : 
* To the peak of Himalaya 

bind thou now thy stately ship.' 
At the fish's mandate quickly, 

to the peak of Himavan 

17 



258 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Bound the sage his bark, and ever 

to this daj, that loftiest peak 
Bears the name of Manhubandhan, 

from the binding of the bark. 
To the sage, the god of mercy, 

thus with fixed look bespake : 
* I am Lord of all creation, 

Brahma, higher than all height; 
I in fish-like form have saved thee, 

Manu, in the perilous hour; 
But from thee new tribes of creatures, 

gods, asuras, men, must spring. 
All the worlds must be created, 

all that moves, or moveth not. 
By an all-surpassing penance, 

this great work must be achieved. 
Through my mercy, thy creation 

to confusion ne'er shall run.' 
Spake the fish, and on the instant, 

to the invisible he passed." 

Manu immediately begins his penance and the 
work of creation. The legend closes, — 

" Such the old, the famous legend, 

named the Story of the Fish, 
Which to thee I have related ; 

this for all our sins atones. 
He that hears it, — Manu's legend, — 

in the full possession he 
Of all things complete and perfect, 

to the heavenly world ascends." 

While the ark floats fastened to the fish, Manu 



THE HUMAN RACE. 259 

enters into conversation with his divine guide and 
preserver ; and his questions and the replies of the 
deity form, in the Purana, the main substance of the 
compilation. The principal subjects are, as usual 
in these books, an account of the creation, the royal 
dynasties, the duties of the different orders, and 
various mythological legends. 

The foregoing are but specimens of the traditions 
which are found among all nations respecting the 
great events of the primitive ages. The curious 
reader will find very much in the authorities cited, 
and othej-s, that will well repay his researches into 
this subject. We ask now, in view of these facts, 
of the number of these traditions, their striking 
resemblances both to the Bible narrative and to 
each other, with just those differences that show 
independent lines of descent from the beginning, 
how they can be explained but upon the supposi- 
tion that they are reminiscences coming down from 
a period in the history of mankind when as yet 
they were an unbroken family. That they could 
have been derived by one nation from another, 
will be conceded, by all familiar with the history 
of these nations, to be impossible. That they 
should have sprung up spontaneously among peo- 
ples so wide apart in lineage, in abode, and in 
speech, no one will maintain. We regard them. 



26o ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

as they have ever been regarded b}^ scholars and 
historians, as among the most conckisive evidences 
both of the unity of the race and of the com- 
mencement of the separate existence of those peo- 
ples since the time of Noah. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 261 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM MYTHOLOGY. 

Mythology, its Nature. — All Myths founded in Fact. — In- 
stances of the Origin of modern Myths. — Character of Greek 
Writers. -^ Specimens of their Mistakes respecting foreign 
Names and Personages. — I. All Mythologies had a common 
Origin. — The Roman and Greek. — The Egyptian. — The 
Phoenician.— The Chaldean. — The Hindu. —II. That Ori- 
gin in the Bible Narrative of the Creation and the Flood. — 
Myths of the Creation. — Of the Antediluvians. — of Noah. — 
Of the Ark. — Of the Dove. — of the Rainbow. — Of the eight 
Persons saved. — Of Noah's three Sons. — Results. 

Mythology is a species of tradition which, 
among pagan nations, embraces the facts and prin- 
ciples of religion. It is true that there are secular 
myths, — legendary stories of individuals and tribes, 
— having -no sacred import. Still, so active was 
the supposed participation of the gods in human 
affairs, that few of these fables are entirely destitute 
of allusions to them. Indeed, the whole theology 
of the ancient pagan world was essentially mythical ; 
the names, characters, and actions of the gods, their 



262 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

relations to men, and the modes in which they were 
to be worshiped, were recounted by the poets and 
fabulists, and formed collectively that mass of tradi- 
tions and writings w^hich we call mythology. 

It is apparent, then, that the field which mythology 
opens to us may afford important aid in the consid- 
eration of the question now in hand. Religious 
belief has the strongest hold upon the heart, and is 
transmitted with the greatest care from one genera- 
tion to another. If all men have sprung from a 
common parentage, we ought to find, as we ascend 
the ^stream of history, traces of a similarity in faith 
and religious rites among them. Even though the 
primitive belief and worship of one God were early 
lost through that depravity of heart which the apos- 
tle Paul so graphically describes in the first chapter 
of Romans, still the idolatry which came in its 
place, having been derived from common sources 
in the traditions of the past, ought to show those 
evidences of the fact which will powerfully demon- 
strate the original unity of those who hold it. 

It is important to observe that all myths, how- 
ever absurd and incredible their form, ^n^xq founded 
ufon fact. Thus says C. O. Miiller : " It is quite 
clear that two distinct ingredients enter into mythol- 
ogy, viz., the statement of things done and things 
imagined. . ... We always find a chain of 



THE HUMAN RACE. 263 

facts leading from history into mythology." * That 
is, some actual person existed, or was believed to 
have existed, or some event, real or supposed, 
took place, which formed, as it were, the nucleus 
of the tradition, round which, in the lapse of time, 
was gathered, under the influence of an • active 
imagination, a mass of fictitious incident, until it 
.finally reached its present form. I am aware that 
some have "held a different theory as to the process 
of its growth, believing that some abstract idea, 
philosophical or ethical, was the germ, which cre- 
ated for itself a legend of personification and nar- 
rative for its expression. Thus says George : f 
*' Mythus is the creation of a fact out of an idea." 
Professor Powell says, " A myth is a doctrine ex- 
pressed in a narrative form ; an abstract moral or 
spiritual truth, dramatized in action and personifica- 
tion, where the object is to enforce faith, not in the 
parable, but in the moral." { I think these defini- 
tions are quite wrong. I do not beheve a myth, 
properly so called, ever originated in an idea, but 
exactly the reverse. There is first the fact, real or 
supposed ; then a distortion of it through misappre- 
hension, or an ampHfication of it for ornament or 

* Introd. to a Scientific System of Mythology, p. 9. 

t Mythus and Sage, quoted by Rawlinson Hist. So., p. 231. 

: Ibid. 



264 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

explanation ; a personification, apotheosis, and the 
like. I know that myths frequently reach that form 
in which an idea or a doctrine becomes their chief 
import; but still I maintain that they began with 
simple facts or actual beings. The opposite theory, 
that abstract ideas or principles, in primitive times, 
clothed themselves in mythical forms, creating gods, 
and heroes, and fictitious events, as a mode of ex- 
pression, endows the infancy of the race with too 
much of a philosophic sense. It reverses the nat- 
ural order of development, imaginative childhood 
first, reflective and reasoning manhood afterward. 

I have said that misapprehension of the original 
facts was a fruitful source of mythology. Professor 
M. Miiller gives several curious instances illustrative 
of this in modern times. 

" Many of the old signs of taverns contain what 
we may call hieroglyphic mythology. There was 
a house on Stoken-church Hill, near Oxford, exhib- 
iting on its sign-board ' Feathers and a Plum.' The 
house itself was vulgarly called the 'Plum and 
Feathers ; ' it was originally the ' Plume of Feath- 
ers,' from the crest of the Prince of Wales. 

" ' A Cat with a Wheel ' is the corrupt emblem of 
' St. Catharine's Wheel ; ' the ' Bull and Gate ' was 
originally intended as a trophy of the taking of Bou- 
logne by Henry VIII. ; and the ' Goat and Com- 



THE HUMAN RAC^E. 265 

passes ' have taken the place of the fine old Puritan 
sign-board, * God encompasses us.' 

" There is much of this popular mythology floating 
about among the people, arising from a very natural 
and very general tendency, viz., from a conviction 
that every name must have a meaning. At Lincoln, 
immediately below the High Bridge, there is an inn 
bearing now the sign of the * Black Goats.' It for- 
merly had the sign of the ^ Three Goats,' a name 
derived from the three gowts or drains by which the 
water from the Swan Pool, a large lake which for- 
merly existed to the west of the city, was conducted 
into the bed of the Witham below. A public house 
having arisen on the bank of the principal of these 
gowts, in honor, probably, of the work when it was 
made, the name became corrupted into 'Three 
Goats ' — a corruption easily accomplished in the 
Lincolnshire dialect. 

" One ot our colleges at Oxford is now called and 
spelled Brasenose, Over the gate of the college 
there is a brazen nose, and the arms of the college 
display the same shield, and have done so for sev- 
eral centuries. I have not heard of any legend to 
account for the startling presence of that emblem 
over the gate of the college ; but this is simply owing 
to the want of poetic imagination on the part of the 
Oxford ciceroni. In Greece, Pausanias would have 



266 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

told US ever so many traditions commemorated by 
such a monument. At Oxford we are simply told 
that the college was originally a brew-house, and 
that its original name, Brasen-huis (brasserie), was 
gradually changed to Brasenose." 

Mistakes of this nature, sometimes originating in 
ignorance and sometimes in design, were exceed- 
ingly common among the Greeks, from whose 
writers we derive our chief knowledge, not only of 
their own mythology, but of those of other peoples. 
Of this propensity Bryant speaks as follows : — 

"As their traditions were obsolete, and filled with 
extraneous matter, it rendered it impossible for them 
to arrange properly the principal events of their 
country. They did not separate and distinguish, 
but often took to themselves the merit of transac- 
tions which were of a prior- date and of another 
clime. These they adopted, and made their own. 
Hence, when they came to digest their history, it was 
all confused, and they were embarrassed with num- 
berless contradictions and absurdities which it was 
impossible to remedy. . . . They had a child- 
ish antipathy to every foreign language, and were 
equally prejudiced in favor of their own. This 
was attended with the most fatal consequences. 
They were misled by the too great delicacy of their 
ear, and could not bear any term which appeared 



THE HUMAN RACE. 267 

to them barbarous and uncouth. On this account 
they either rejected foreign appellations, or so mod- 
eled and changed them, that they became, in sound 
and meaning, essentially different. And as they 
were attached to their own country and its customs, 
they presumed that everything was to be looked for 
among themselves. They did not consider that the 
titles of their gods, the names of cities, and their 
terms of worship were imported, that their ancient 
hymns were grown obsolete, and that time had 
wrought a great change. They explained every- 
thing by the language in use, without the least ret- 
rospect or allowance, and all names and titles from 
other countries were liable to the same rule. If the 
name were dissonant and disagreeable to their ear, 
it was rejected as barbarous ; but if it were at all 
similar in sound to any word in 'their language, they 
changed it to that word, though the name were of 
Syriac original, or introduced from Egypt or Baby- 
lonia. The purport of the term was by these means 
changed, and the history which depended upon it 
either perverted or effaced." * 

Many examples are given by this author in illus- 
tration of these statements, of which only a specimen 
or two can here be mentioned. The myth of Mount 
Olympus being the residence of the gods originated 

* Ancient Mythology, vol. i. pp. 204, 210. 



268 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

thus : Ha7n^ the progenitor of the Egyptians, was 
worshiped as a god {ET)^ being the same that the 
Greeks called Amun, or Ammon. Phi signifies a 
mouth,* and was used especially to denote the voice 
or oracle of a god. Hence El-Ham-Phi, or Elampi, 
would mean the oracle of the god Amun. The 
Greeks, knowing or caring nothing for the etymol- 
ogy, wrote it Ol-um-pos (Olympus), and then in- 
vented the legend corresponding, locating it, as ora- 
cles were generally placed, on a mountain, and 
making it the home of Zeus (the Greek equivalent 
of Amun) , and of course of his divine court. 

The same word, slightly changed, Am-^phi-el^ 
gave rise to another notion equally absurd. The 
sound of it somewhat resembled that of their own 
word omfhalos^ a navel. Hence they fabled that 
Delphi, the seat of the oracle of Apollo, was the 
navels i. e., the center of the world. Sophocles 
calls it the " umbilical oracle of the earth," f and 
Livy, "umbilicum orbis terrarum."J Towns and 
cities, where similar oracles existed, were often 
called Omphalian, and their people Omphalians ; 
and Quintus Curtius, describing the temple of Jupi- 

* As in the Hebrew words Peniel, Pibeseth, Pihahiroth, Phi- 
col, etc. 

t MiOof-npala ri]g fiuvrsta, CEdip. Tjr., v. 487. 
t L- 38, c. 47. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 269 

ter Amun, gravely informs us that there was an 
Omphalus there, and that the deity was represented 
in the form of a Navel, set around with precious 
stones.* 

In like manner the Egyptian Cahen-Cafh-El, 
meaning the "priests of the temple of the god" (the 
sun), was, from a rude similarity of sound, trans- 
formed into Cyno-ceph-al-oi, i. e., "beings with dogs' 
heads ; " and the absurd story invented that the 
Egyptians kept in their temples baboons with dogs' 
heads, who were wonderfully skilled in the motions 
of the heavenly bodies, who could read and write, 
and " whenever one of them was introduced into 
the sacred apartments for probation, the priest pre- 
sented him with a tablet, and with a pen and ink, 
and, by his writing, could immediately find out if he 
were of the true intelligent breed," f the latter cir- 
cumstance referring to the examination to which 
novices were subjected before they were admitted to 
the priesthood. % 

These illustrations .we deem very valuable, as 
throwing a flood of light on the whole subject of the 
heathen mythology, enabling us to account for many 

* Umbilico maxime similis est habitus, smaragdo et gemmis 
coagmentus, 1. 4, c. 7. 
t Horapollo, 1. i, c. 14, p. 28. 
X Bryant, Anc. Myth., vol. ii. pp. 20-23. 



270 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

of its wildest absurdities. Not that we are able to 
trace the rise and progress of every myth, but we 
• can easily imagine, after these examples, modern 
as well as ancient, how they may have risen and 
run a wild course to the shape in which we now 
find them. If the name of an old brew-house can 
be so changed as to become a brazen nose, if three 
drains for conducting off the waters of a lake can 
become, even on the very spot. Three Goats, if the 
pious expression of confidence in the divine care can 
be transformed into the Goat and Compasses, and all 
this in recent historic times, and near the very seats 
of modern science, what might we not expect among 
the ignorant and superstitious peoples of other lands 
and other times? 

The views thus exhibited of the nature of myths, 
and the origin and growth of mythology in general, 
will prepare the way for the proposition which will 
bring the subject into connection with our present 
discussion, viz., That all the systems of ancient 
mythology had a common origin, and that origin 
was in the -persons and events described in the 
Mosaic account of the primeval ages of man, in the 
first chapters of Genesis, 

I. The first part of this proposition, that all the 
systems of ancient mythology had a common origin, 
need not detain us long. 



- THE HUMAN RACE. 27 I 

That the Roman mythology was essentially the 
same as the Greek is familiar to every classical 
scholar. The names of the gods were, indeed, for 
the most part, different ; but their characters and his- 
tories were sufficiently alike to cause them to be 
recognized by the writers of both countries as sub- 
stantially the same. I speak now of the chief deities 
only, for there were numerous local and subordinate 
divinities, both in Greece and Italy, who were not 
known elsewhere. Nor are we to understand that 
the Roman mythology, except partially, in later 
times, when intercourse between the two countries 
became frequent, was borrowed from the Greek. 
Rather, the two mythologies, like the two lan- 
guages, were sisters, being each derived from a 
common source, in a period antecedent to the settle- 
ment of either country. 

In like manner the Greek mythology, in its main 
elements, was the same as that of Egypt. The 
Grecian writers, from Herodotus down, represent 
that the names and characters of the principal gods 
and goddesses were derived from the East, mostly 
from Egypt. Herodotus (ii. 52) says this expressly, 
and Diodorus Siculus dwells upon it at great length. 
All that was peculiarly Grecian was the localizing 
and modifying of the names in the manner already 
described, with the invention of new fictions to cor- 



272 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

respond to those alterations. I think it a mistake, 
however, to affirm that the Greek mythology was 
derived irom Egypt, and would prefer to say that 
both the Egyptian and the Grecian were originally 
from a common source, and owe to this their mutual 
resemblance to each other. 

This resemblance, again, is found between the 
Egyptian, Phoenician, and Chaldean or Babylonian 
systems. Bunsen expressly says, " All Egypt's roots 
are in Asia, "-and he gives very conclusive examples 
of such derivation. The Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and 
Mercury of the West, and the Amun, Muntru, 
Athor, and Thoth of Egypt, are at Nineveh and 
Babylon, Bel-Merodach, Nergal, Ishtar, and Nebo. 

And so in numerous other instances. There is 
some reason to think that the gods of the Assyrian 
and Babylonian mythologies, as deciphered from the 
cuneiform inscriptions, are nearer the common source 
from which all are derived, than any other. 

In the Hindu mythology, we are met again by 
striking points of resemblance to those already men- 
tioned. It is, says M. Miiller, a " fact which can 
not be doubted, and which, if fully appreciated, will 
be felt to be pregnant with the most startling and 
the most instructive lessons of antiquity — the fact, I 
mean, that Zeus^ the most sacred name in Greek 
mythology, is the same word as Dyaus, or Dyu 



THE HUMAN RACE. 273 

in Sanskrit, Jovis or Ju in Jupiter in Latin, Tiw 
in Anglo-Saxon (preserved in Tiwsdseg, Tuesday, 
the day of the Eddie god Tyr), Zio in old High 
German," * and, he might have added, Ti in Chi- 
nese, and Teo in Mexican. And a writer in the 
Christian Examiner, f reviewing this work of Miil- 
ler, remarks further, " As the Sanskrit has, in most 
cases, preserved its roots in a more primitive form 
than the other Aryan languages, so in the Rig-Veda 
we find the same mythic phraseology as in Homer 
and Hesiod, but in a far more rudimentary and un- 
intelligible condition. Zeus, Eros, Helena, Oura- 
nos, and Cerberus reappear as Dyaus, Arusha, 
Sarameias, Sarama, Varuna, and Sawara ; but 
instead of completely developed personalities, they 
are presented to us only as vague powers, with their 
nature and attributes dimly defined, and their rela- 
tions to each other fluctuating, and often contradic- 
tory. There is no theogony, no mythologic system. 
The same pair of divinities appear now as father 
and daughter, now as brother and sister, now as 
husband and wife ; now they entirely lose their per- 
sonality, and become undifferentiated Forces. In 
the Vedas, the early significancy of myths has not 
faded, but continually recurs to the mind of the 

* Science of Lang., second series, p. 444. 
t May, 1S65, p. 380. 
18 



274 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

poet. In the Homeric poems, that significance is 
ahnost entirely lost sight of, and its influence upon 
the poet is an unconscious influence." 

I remark here, as before, that these resemblances 
do not prove that the Greeks derived their my- 
thology from India. In the mass, and in details, it 
has very little in common v^ith that of the latter 
country, although many of the names in them are 
etymologically the same. The most that I would 
claim is, that the elementary roots of the two systems 
were derived from a common source. Or, rather, 
those roots existed as a common stock among the 
remote ancestors of the two peoples before they sep- 
arated in the primeval times, and when the separa- 
tions took place, these elementary roots developed, 
in the different countries to which they were car- 
ried into the different systems subsequently found 
there. 

II. The second part of our proposition is, that all 
the various systems of mythology existing among 
the ancient nations had their origin in the persons 
and events mentioned by Moses in the earliest chap- 
ters of Genesis. 

The full exhibition of this fact would require a 
volume, or rather many volumes. Of course only 
some hints of the argument can be given here. The 
reader is referred, for a detailed view, to Bryant's 



THE HUMAN RACE. 275 

Ancient Mythology^ Faber's Origin of Pagan Idol- 
atry^ Kitto's Daily Bible Illustrations^ vol. i., etc. 

It is not meant, of course, that every particular 
of the vast mass of fable, poetry, and song, which 
constitute those mythologies, was derived from the 
source mentioned, but only their roots, or the pri- 
mary and leading facts from which all the rest have 
been developed. Some of these primary facts are 
the following : — 

The creation of the world. According to Mo- 
ses, the earth was originally "without form and 
void" (Heb., emptiness and desolation), "and 
darkness was upon the face of the deep." The 
first thing formed was light, or the Day ; then the 
firmament called Heaven ; the dry land. Earth ; the 
collections of waters. Seas ; next vegetable life, 
yielding seed and fruit ; after that, the sun, moon, 
and stars. Now, all this, told in the Greek and 
Roman mythologies, is as follows : — 

First was Chaos, " the confused mass containing 
the elements of all things," * who was the mother of 
Erchos and Nyx, i. e., Darkness and Night. These 
intermarrying, begat ^thcr and Hcmcra, the Air, 

* Smith's Did. of Biog. and Mjth., which will be our author- 
ity in the subsequent statements, unless otherwise noticed. 
Where two names are given together, the fin;t is Greek, and the 
second its Latin equivalent. 



276 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

or Welkin, and the Day. The eldest of the gods 
was Ouranos, Coelus, who married Ge^ Terra, 
i. e., the Heaven and Earth, and was the father of 
the Titans, viz., Oceanus, Cronus, Hyperion, lape- 
tus, Coeus, and Crius. Oceanus^ the ocean, mar- 
ried his sister Tethys, and begat the Oceamdes, 
nymphs of the ocean; the JVerezdes^ nymphs of the 
Mediterranean ; the Potameides^ nymphs of the 
rivers; the Naiades^ nymphs of fountains, etc. 
Kronos, Saturn, marrying his sister Rhea, was the 
father o{ Uestia, Vesta, i. e., fire ; Demeter^ Ceres, 
i. e., mother-earth, the goddess of corn and fertility; 
Zeus^ Jupiter, 'and his sister-wife Hera^ Juno, the 
gods of the sky or upper air; Poseidon^ Neptune, 
the sea (Mediterranean) ; and Hades, Pluto, the 
under-world, hell. Hyperion, marrying another 
sister, Theia, was the father of Helios, Sol, the 
sun; Selene, Luna, the moon, and jEos, Aurora, 
the dawn. 

Equally fruitful in fable has been the record of 
man's creation and fall. In Genesis, God is repre- 
sented as taking counsel with himself, and then 
making man out of the dust of the earth, and ani- 
mating him with an immortal soul, endowed with 
the divine image. »Subsequently woman was made, 
and brought to the man, who, being tempted, brings 
sin and death into the world, " and all our woe," 



THE HUMAN RACE. 277 

but to whom is given in mercy the hope of a De- 
liverer. This is told, mythologically, thus : — 

lafetus, one of the Titans, w^as the father of 
Profuetheus, i. e., forethought or counsel. He 
made the first man of clay, and then, with the aid 
of Athene, stole from heaven a celestial spark, with 
which to animate him. In punishment for this theft, 
Zeus ordered Hephaestus to make a woman, Pan- 
dora^ — so called because endowed with " every gift," 
beauty, wisdom, etc., — and gave her in marriage to 
£^pimctheus, i. e., afterthought or repentance. She, 
led by curiosity, lifted the lid of the box in which 
Prometheus had confined diseases, misfortunes, and 
other woes, and let them loose to afl^lict mankind. 
In the bottom of the vessel, however, hope re- 
mained, which is appointed to solace man under his 
sufferings. 

Before the flood there was, according to the Bible, 
a succession often patriarchs, who lived each many 
hundred years. From these, we cannot doubt, 
originated the idea, which prevailed among nearly 
all nations, of a series of antediluvian kings, some- 
times regarded as divine, sometimes as human, 
whose reigns covered immense periods of time. 
These were the gods, demigods, and manes, of 
Egyptian chronology, that reigned before Menes, 
who, I doubt not, was Noah. ' In respect to the 



278 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

term Manes (Gr. viyivBg)^ Bryant remarks (iv. 
441), that the Egyptian word was IVechus, or JVecho, 
signifying a king, as seen in the name Pharaoh- 
Necho (2 Kings xxiii. 29), also in Nech-epsos, 
Nech-aos, etc., and that the Greeks, not under- 
standing it, rendered it by vinvg, a dead person ; 
hence manes, or spirits of the dead. Instead, there- 
fore, of " gods, demigods, and manes," he would 
read, " gods, and demigods, and kings who were 
mortals." These, it is said, reigned in all 24,900 
years.* The Chaldeans, as we have seen (p. 94), 
enumerated ten kings before Xisuthrus and the 
flood, who reigned 432,000 years. So among the 
Hindus there were ten lords of created beings, and 
among the Chinese the first man, Pan-kou, who 
chiseled the heavens and earth out of granite, lived 
18,000 years, and was followed by a succession of 
sovereigns called celestial, terrestrial, and human, 
until Fuh-hi (Noah), covering a period variously 
given as from 45,000 to 500,000 years.f 

In consequence of the wickedness of the race, 
God, it is said, repented him that he had made man, 
and determined to destroy them with a deluge. 
What else eould have originated the legend that 
Uranus hated his children, and sent them all, im- 
mediately after their birth, to Tartarus? 

* Appendix, E., p. 362. 

t pp. 121, 122. — William, Mid. King., vol. ii. pp. 196, 199. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 



279 



But the most fruitful source of mythology was 
the flood itself, with the persons and objects con- 
nected with it — the event which, as we have seen, is 
preserved in the traditions of all the ancient nations. 

First, the patriarch himself is described to us. in 
the stories of Deucalion, Xisuthrus, Coxcox, etc., 
the particulars of which have before been given. 
Next, his name appears in numerous languages, 
and in a great variety of forms, often disguised, but 
still showing evidences of their original identity. 
That name in Hebrew is N-ch, or N-u-ch, the final 
hard guttural of which is in Greek represented by 
j«, or more commonly softened into g, as Nus, 
Nusus, Naus, Noas, Noe, etc. "Its fundamental 
root is Na, to which, in all the languages of the 
latter (Aryan) race, is attached the meaning of 
water — v6.biv^ to flow, vapLa^ water, v^x^w^ to swim; 
Nympha, Neptunus, water deities ; Nix, Nick, 
the Undine of the northern races," * to which I may 
add vavq^ navis, a ship, navy, nautical, etc. Thus 
Suidas tells us of a king Nan-nakus, or An-nakus, 
who foretold the flood of Deucalion, and warned 
men to repent. I-nachus was represented as the 
son of Oceanus, who, after the flood, led his people 
from the mountains into the plains, and confined the 
waters within their proper channels. The name 

♦ Hist, of the East, Lenormant, vol. i. p. 15. 



28o ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

again appears in Dionysus^ the Greek appellation 
of Bacchus, meaning Dio, or Dius-Nus, the divine 
Nus. He was the god of wine and drunkenness — 
a plain allusion to Noah's intoxication from wine. 
It is said that he was the son of Zeus and Semele, 
and that to escape the anger 'of Juno, Zeus put the 
mother and child into a chest (ark), and threw it 
into the sea. The vessel arrived safely to land> and 
the god was carried to Mount Nysa^ where he was 
brought up. The Scriptures say that, after the 
flood, Noah began to be a husbandman (Heb., 
man of the ground) ; and this very epithet {Qeb^ 
xd6vLog) is one of the titles of Dionysus. He in- 
vented the cultivation of the vine, and, leaving 
Mount Nysa, traveled over the world teaching men 
the use of wine, the worship of the gods, the ob- 
servance of the laws, etc.* Among the Egyptians he 

was recognized under the name of J\ )rji ^^ 5 v 
Nou or Nuh, signifying the " primordial water,'* 
also in Kneph, Chnoubis, Chnouphis, and in the 
city No-Amun, etc. In the Vedas, the name of the 
person saved from the flood is Ma-nu, and one of 
the earliest Chinese kings is Nau the Great, to whom 
is attributed the invention of the cycle of 60 years. 
The so-called first man, Pan-kou, or, as it may 
equally well be pronounced Man-hou, is probably, 
also, the same name, f 

* Appendix L. f Appendix M. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 28l 

The tradition of the ark itself is preserved in 
many ways. • Its name in Hebrew was ninn, tcba^ 
or theha^ which was the name given to numerous 
cities, all of which show some traces of connection 
with Noah. Thebes, in Egypt, was said to have 
been founded by Menes (Noah) , and was called No 
(Ezek. XXX. 14, 15, 16; Nah. iii. 8). From this 
city Osiris set forth on a tour of the world to teach 
men agriculture. During his absence Typhon 
(signifying storm, or deluge) conspired against hjm, 
and let loose a flood upon the World, and, on his 
return, Typhon killed him, and placed the body in 
a beautiful ark, which he threw upon the waters. 
This was cast upon the shore of Phoenicia, where 
Osiris returned to life, and became the patron of 
agriculture, etc. Thebes, in Greece, was the birth- 
place of Dio-nysus, or Bacchus, the god of wine, 
another name for Noah, as already seen. There 
was also a Thiba in Pontus, in regard to which 
there was a tradition that its inhabitants could not 
be drowned. Another Hebrew word for ark was 
n-15^, argoz, translated coffer in i,Sam. vi. 8, 11, 
which doubtless gave its name to the various cities 
called Argos. Argos, in Achaia, was founded by 
I-nachus (Noah) , and its citadel built by Da-natis 
(another name of Noah), who is said to have come 
in a large ship from Egypt, with his fifty daughters, 



282 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

and who deposited in the citadel a model of the ves- 
sel called the Ampht^rumnon, i. e., having two 
prows, hence lunar-shaped. Here lived Argus, the 
builder of the ship Argo, w^ho went on the famous 
Argonautic expedition, and Da-nae, the mother of 
Perseus, who conceived by Zeus, who came to her 
in a golden shower, and was afterwards shut up 
with her infant in an ark, and thrown into the sea, 
where she floated to an island, and was saved by a 
fisherman named Dictys. In Greek the ark was 
called Kibotos, which was another name of Apamea 
in Phrygia, where was struck the famous medal, 
having on it the representation of the ark and dove 
with Noah and his wife. 

The dove which Noah sent from the ark has given 
rise to a multitude of traditions. The word in 
Hebrew is \w, Yonah, in Greek o^^dg, whence 
probably Venus, in Latin, the goddess of love. 
She is said to have risen from the foam of the- sea, 
hence called Venus Anadyomene. She presided 
over the waters, and had power to appease the 
troubled ocean, and cause a universal calm. The 
dove was especially sacred to her, and she was 
represented in a chariot drawn by these birds. All 
this is plainly suggestive of the dove sent forth from 
the ark, who flew to and fro on the waters, finding 
no rest for the sole of her foot, and whose return 



THE HUMAN RACE. 283 

was the signal that the flood had abated, and fair 
weather returned to the earth. As the prophet who 
preached to the Ninevites was named Jonah, so the 
patriarch who preached to the antediluvians was 
called by Berosus Oan^ or Oannes, which are the 
same name. He is represented, with evident, allu- 
sion to the flood, as being below the waist a fish 
(dag) ; hence Dag-on^ the fish deity of the Baby- 
lonians and Phoenicians. He is said to have been a 
benevolent being, who came out of the sea, taught 
mankind to build temples and cities, and cultivate 
the earth, etc. 

From the same source, also, probably originated 
Juno, the queen of the gods. She was called 
I-nachia by the poets, and was accompanied by 
Iris, the rainbow, etc. 

The eight persons saved in the ark are supposed 
to be represented by the Cabtrz, who were four 
gods and four goddesses, children of Zadik, i. e., 
the righteous one, the first of whom, as deciphered 
b}^ Wilkinson from the monuments, bore the well- 
known Egyptian names of the patriarch Nou, Noub, 
Cnoubis, Cnouphis, Kneph, etc. In other combina- 
tions we have the names of three gods and god- 
desses, and of twelve, the number being doubled, as 
is not uncommon in mythology ; as Herodotus says, 
" The twelve gods were, they affirm, produced from 



284 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the eight." It is remarkable, also, how triads abound 
in almost all mythologies, as among the Greeks, 
Zeus, Poseidon, *and Hades; among the Romans, 
Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto ; in Egypt, Osiris, Isis, 
Horus, etc. Wilkinson says, " If, in every town or 
district of Egypt, the principal temple had been pre- 
served, we might discover the nature of the triad 
worshiped there, as well as the name of the chief 
deity who presided in it." * Tacitus relates that the 
ancient Germans celebrated in songs the praises of 
their god Tuisco and his son Man-nus, the founders 
of three Germanic nations. To Man-nus (compare 
Egyptian, Menes, Hindu, Manu, etc.) they assign 
three sons, by whose names the people occupying 
different parts of the country were called. Among 
the Persians, Feridun had three sons, Selim, Tur, 
and Irij, to whom he gave respectively Rum, Turan, 
and Iran. 

But we can pursue these illustrations no further. 
The subject is certainly a curious one, and will 
amply repay the investigations of every scholar of 
antiquity. Making, now, all due allowances for 
mistake in some particulars, from erroneous ety- 
mologies, or insufficient points of resemblance, 
we are sure that the general conclusion can not 
W^ll be disputed. In some respects it seems 

* Anc. Egypt, second series, vol. i. p. 230. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 285 

even more reliable than that derived from His 
tory, Ethnology, or Language. Mythology has 
to deal with the origin of things^ especially of re- 
ligious things, and seems to carry us further back 
than either of its sister sciences. And though at 
first view the vast mass of fiction and fable which 
it presents to us seems scarcely less confused than 
the original chaos of the earth, yet a little patient 
study will enable us to find the clew which will 
lead us intelligently and safely through it, and 
show a very simple origin for the whole, in the 
inspired account of creation, the antediluvian 
world, and the flood ; thus corroborating the truth 
of that narrative, and proving the descent of all 
nations from one common source. 



286 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM GEOLOGY. 

Ljell's "Geological Evidences." — Alleged Facts proving a Re- 
mote Antiquity for the Race. — i. Fragments of Brick and 
Pottery from Egypt. — The Data not verified. — Changes in 
the Nile Valley. — Burnt Brick unknown to the Ancient 
Egyptians. — 2. Htlman Fossil in Mississippi Valley. — 3. 
Skeleton found near New Orleans. —4. Remains in the 
Florida Coral Reefs. — 5. Flint Implements in the Valley of 
the Somme. — Diagram of the Valley. — Its assumed Geologi- 
cal History. — The Association of Human and Animal Re- 
mains no Proof that they were contemporaneous. — If contem- 
poraneous, no proof of extreme Antiquity. — Opinion of 
Westminster Review. — Opinion of Professor Rogers. — Al- 
leged Geological Changes in the Somme Valley. — Assumed 
to be wrought by existing Agencies. — Uniformitarians. — 
Testimony of President Hitchcock. — Of Professor Duns. — 
Of Sir R. Murchison, — Of Professor Wilson. — Of Elie de 
Beaumont. — Of Professor Rogers. — 6. Human Remains in 
Peat-bogs, Shell-mounds, and Lakes. — The Stone, the 
Bronze, and the Iron Age. — All pertaining to the Celtic 
Race. — Opinion of Dr. Keller. — Of Troyon. — Conclusion. 

I PROPOSE now to pass under review the leading 
facts presented us in Geology, which are relied on 



THE HUMAN RACE. 287 

by many to prove a very high antiquity. They 
are taken chiefly from the elaborate work of Sir 
Charles LyelL entitled, "The Geological Evidences 
of the Antiquity of Man" (Am. edition, 1863). 
In that volume the distinguished author has col- 
lected all the important facts furnished by his 
favorite science, whether brought to light by him- 
self or by the labors of others. The work may 
be regarded as exhaustive on that side of the 
question. 

I. The first case that I will notice of alleged 
geological discoveries, which are supposed to 
prove the very remote antiquity of our race, is 
that of the fragments of brick and pottery dug up 
from the valley of the Nile. This case is the 
more important, as it is cited by almost every 
author who avowedly opposes the Bible chro- 
nology. 

In the year 185 1, the Royal Society of London 
instituted a series of borings in the sediment of 
the Nile valley, under the care of Mr. Leonard 
.Horner, the expense of which was partly sus- 
tained by the viceroy. Sixty workmen, with sev- 
eral engineers, were employed for this purpose — 
men accustomed to the chmate, and capable of 
pursuing the work during the hot months, after 
the annual inundation was passed. " The results," 



288 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

says Sir Charles Lyell, " of chief importance were 
obtained from two sets of shafts and borings, sunk 
at intervals in lines crossing the great valley from 
east to west. One of these consisted of no less 
than fifty-one pits and artesian perforations made 
where the valley is sixteen miles wide from side 
to side, between the Arabian and Libyan deserts, 
in the latitude of Heliopolis, about eight miles 
above the apex of the delta. The other line of 
borings and pits, twenty-seven in number, was in 
the parallel of Memphis, where the valley is only 
five miles broad. . . 

" In some instances the excavations were on a 
large scale for the first sixteen or twenty-four feet, 
in which cases jars, vases, pots, and a small human 
figure in burnt clay, a copper knife, and other 
entire articles were dug up ; but when water, soak- 
ing through from the Nile, was reached, the boring 
instrument used was too small to allow of more 
than fragments of works of art being brought up. 
Pieces of burnt brick and -pottery were extracted 
almost everywhere, and from all depths, even where 
they sank sixty feet below the surface toward the 
central parts of the valley. In none of these cases 
did they get to the bottom of the alluvial soil." * 

The mode in which these pieces of brick and pot- 

* Geological Evidences, etc., pp. 34, 36. 



THE HUMAN^ RACE. 289 

tery are made to testify to the antiquity of man, is 
by estimating the length of time requisite for their 
burial at the alleged depth under the sediment de- 
posited by the overflow of the Nile. "M. Girard, 
of the French expedition to Egypt, supposed the 
average rate of the increase of Nile mud in the plain 
between Assouan and Cairo to be five English inches 
in a century. This conclusion, according to Mr. 
Horner, is very vague, and founded on insufficient 
data; the amount of matter thrown down by the 
waters in different parts of the plain varying so 
much-that to strike an average with any approach 
to accuracy must be most difficult. Were we to 
assume six inches in a century, the burnt brick met 
with at a depth of sixty feet would be 1 2 ,000 years 
old. 

" Another fragment of red brick was found by 
Linant Bey in a boring seventy -two feet deep, 
being two or three feet below the level of the Medi- 
terranean, in the parallel of the apex of the delta, 
200 metres distant from the river, on the Libyan 
side of the Rosetta branch. M. Rosiere, in the 
great French work on Egypt,* has estimated the 
mean rate of deposit of sediment in the delta at two 
inches and three lines in a century. Were we to 
take two and a half inches, a work of art seventy- 

* Description de I'Egypt (Histoire Naturelle, torn. ii. p. 494). 
19 



290 ANTIQUITy AND UNITY OF 

two feet deep must have been buried more thaa 
30,000 years ago. But if the boring of Linant Bey 
was made where an arm of the river had been silted 
up at a time when the apex of the delta was some- 
what further south, or more distant from the sea than 
now, the brick in question might be comparatively 
very modern." (pp. 37, 38.) 

It is truly surprising that any author of repute 
should build such a conclusion on data so imperfect, 
and involving so many elements of doubt. What 
assurance have we that these fragments of brick and 
pottery were actually found in the places alleged? 
In Egypt, and throughout the East generally, the 
native population are skilled in the art of furnishing 
artificial antiques, and will alwa3^s produce whatever 
specimens are supposed to be wanted. Or, conced- 
ing their genuineness, what evidence is there of a 
uniform rate of increase in the Nile deposits for so 
many thousands of years. Lyell himself admits 
that the Egyptians were " in the habit of inclosing 
with embankments the areas on which they erected 
temples, statues, and obelisks, so as to exclude the 
waters of the Nile," and " Herodotus tells us that in 
his time those spots from w^hich the Nile waters had 
been shut out for centuries, appeared sunk, and 
could be looked down into from the surrounding 
grounds, which had been raised by the gradual 



THE HUMAN RACE. 29I 

accumulation over them of sediment annually thrown 
down. If the waters at length should break into 
such depressions, they must at first carry with them 
into the inclosure much mud, washed from the steep 
surrounding banks, so that a greater quantity would 
be deposited in a few years than perhaps in as many 
centuries on the great plain outside the depressed 
area where no such disturbing causes intervened." 

(pp. 38, 39-) 

It lias been suggested, also, that these fragments 
may have fallen into wells, or into some of the innu- 
merable fissures into which the soil is rent in the 
dry season, which are often very deep. The bed of 
the Nile itself has often changed its s'ite. " Accord- 
ing to an ancient tradition (Herod, ii. 99), Menes, 
. when he founded Memphis, is related to 
have diverted the course of the Nile, by a dam, about 
one hundred stadia (12 miles) south of the city, and 
thus to have dried up the old bed." * " We know 
from the testimony of Makrizi, that less than a thou- 
sand years ago the Nile flowed close by the western 
limits of Cairo, from which it is now separated by a 
plain extending to the width of more than a mile. In 
this plain, therefore, one might now dig to the depth 
of twenty feet or more, and find plenty of fragments 
of potter}^ and other remains, less than a thousand 

* Q^iarterly Rev., 1859, P* 420- 



292 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

years old. Natural changes in the course of the 
Nile, similar to that which we have here mentioned, 
and some of them, doubtless, much greater have 
taken place in almost every part of its passage 
through Egypt." * 

It is further alleged, that burnt brick was un- 
known in Egypt till the time of thfe Romans. . " If a 
coin of Trajan or Diocletian had been found in these 
spots, even Mr. Horner would have been obliged 
to admit that he had made a fatal mistake in his 
conclusions; but a piece of burnt brick, found be- 
neath the soil, tells the same tale that a Roman coin 
would tell under the same circumstances. 
There is not a single known structure of burnt brick, 
from one end of Egypt to the other, earlier than the 
period of the Roman dominion. These 'fragments 
of burnt brick,' therefore, have been deposited after 
the Christian era, and, instead of establishing the 
existence of man in Egypt more than 13,000 years, 
supply a convincing proof of the worthlessness of 
Mr. Horner's theory." f 

Sir Charles Lyell notices most of these objections 
to his theory, and attempts to parry the force of 
them, but with indifferent success. As to the last, 
he claims, on the authority of Mr. Birch, of the 
British Museum, that it is erroneous in fact, there 

* Quarterly Rev., 1859, P- 420. t Ibid. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 293 

being two burnt bricks in the Museum, with inscrip- 
tions that refer them to the i8th and 19th dynasties 
(B. C. 1250-1300). But on the main point of the 
argument, he confesses what is a virtual abandon- 
ment of it. "This conclusion," according to Mr. 
Horner, "of an average rate of increase of Nile mud 
equaling five inches in a century, is very vague, and 
founded on insufficient data, the amount of matter 
thrown down by the waters in different parts of the 
plain varying so much that to strike an average with 
any approach to accuracy must be most difficult^ 
Again, " The experiments instituted by Mr. Horner, 
in the hope of obtaining an accurate chronometric 
scale for testing the thickness of Nile sediment, are 
not considered, by experienced Egyptologists, to 
have been satisfactory J^ (pp. 37, 38.) 

2. The next instance which I will notice is that 
of the human fossil discovered in a ravine near 
Natchez, Miss. The ravine was caused by the 
earthquakes which occurred in the Mississippi val- 
ley in 1811-12, and is named, from the bones found 
in it, the Mammoth Ravine. Mr. Lyell describes 
the fossil referred to as follows : — 

" I satisfied myself that the ravine had been considera- 
bly enlarged and lengthened, a short time before my visit, 
and it was then freshly undermined, and undergoing con- 
stant waste. From a clayey deposit, immediately below 



294 ANTIQpiTY AND UNITY OF 

the yellow * loam, bones of the Mastodon Ohioticus^ a 
species of megalonyx, bones of the genera Equus^ Bos^ 
and others, some of extinct and some presumed to be of 
living species, had been detached, and had fallen to the 
base of the cHfFs. Mingled with the rest, the pelvic bone 
of a man {os innominatum) was obtained by Dr. Dicke- 
son, of Natchez, in whose collection I saw it. It appeared 
to be quite in the same state of preservation, and was of 
the same black color, as the other fossils, and was be- 
lieved to have come, like them, from a depth of about 
thirty feet from the surface. In my ' Second Visit to 
America,' in 1846,* I suggested, as a possible explanation 
of this association of a human bone with the remains of a 
mastodon and megalonyx, that the former may possibly 
have been derived from the vegetable soil at the top of the 
cliff, whereas the remains of extinct mammalia were dis- 
lodged from a lower position, and both may have fallen 
into the same heap, or talus, at the bottom of the ravine. 
The pelvic bone might, I conceived, have acquired its 
black color by having lain, for years or centuries, in a 
dark, superficial, peaty soil, common in that region. I 
was informed that there were many human bones in old 
Indian graves in the same district, stained of as black -a 
dye. On suggesting this hypothesis to Colonel Wil^y, of 
Natchez, I found that the same idea had already occurred 
to his mind. No doubt, had the pelvic bone belonged to 
an}^ recent mammifer other than man, such a theory would 
never have been resorted to ; but so long as we have only 

* Vol. ii. p. 197. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 295 

one isolated case, and are without the testimony of a 
geologist who was present to behold the bone when still 
engaged in the matrix, and to extract it with his own 
hands, it is allowable to suspend our judgment as to the 
high antiquity of the fossil." * 

Allowable ! And is this science, which from the 
finding of a bone that confessedly may have come 
from the soil itself, — possibly from an old Indian 
grave, — makes a merit of its candor in only not 
claiming it as demonstration that man lived in the 
Mississippi valley " more than a thousand centuries 
ago"? Why did not Sir Charles say as much, at 
least, as that we are required to suspend judgment ; 
or, rather, that the case proves nothing at all, except 
the willingness of the author to find evidence in sup- 
port of what was, in his mind, alread}'^ a foregone 
conclusion? 

3. The next case adduced for the same purpose 
is that of the skeleton found near New Orleans. 

'' In one part of the modern delta, near New Orleans, 
a large excavation has been made for gas works, where a 
succession of beds, almost wholly made up of vegetable 
matter, has been passed through, such as we now see 
forming in the cypress swamps of the neighborhood, 
where the deciduous cypress {Taxodiu77t dlstichuiii)^ 
with its strong and spreading roots, plays a conspicuous 

* Geological Evidences, pp. 202, 203. 



296 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

part. In this excavation, at the depth of sixteen feet from 
the surface, beneath four buried forests, superimposed one 
upon the other, the workmen are stated by Dr. B. Dow- 
ler, to have foUnd some charcoal and a human skeleton, 
the cranium of which is said to belong to the aboriginal 
type of the red Indian race. As the discovery in question 
had not been made when I saw the excavation in prog- 
ress at the gas works in 1846, I can not form an opinion 
as to the value of the chronological calculations which 
have led Dr. Dowler to ascribe to this skeleton an an- 
tiquity of 50,000 years." * 

This case has always been regarded as an im- 
portant one by the advocates of a high human an- 
tiquity. Who has not heard of this skeleton, under 
the " four buried forests " ! And yet how very un- 
certain the data ! Mr. Lyell gives them at second 
or third hand, and admits that he can not judge of the 
evidence adduce.d as to the great age of this fossil. 
In his " Second Visit to the United States" (vol. ii. 
p. 191), he describes the growth of the cypress 
swamp, and quotes from a writer in Silliman's Jour- 
nal (Sec. series, vol. v. p. 17), as follows: "Sec- 
tions of such filled-up cypress basins, exposed by the 
changes in the position of the river, exhibit undis- 
turbed, perfect, and erect stumps, in a series of every 
elevation with respect to each other, extending frorn 

* Geological Evidence, pp. 43, 44. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 297 

high-water mark down to at least, twenty-five feet 
below, measuring out a time when not less than ten 
fully 7natured cypress growths must have succeeded 
each other, the average of whose age could not have 
been less than four hundred years, thus making an 
aggregate of 4000 years since the first cypress tree 
vegetated in the basin. There are also instances 
where prostrate trunks, of huge dimensions, are 
found imbedded in the clay, immediately over,which 
are erect stumps of trees numbering no less than 800 
concentric layers." But the skeleton referred to 
•was found under four of these " buried forests," or 
"cypress growths ; " so that, according to the mode of 
calculation here proposed, its antiquity is only 1600 
years. And we venture to suggest, what to our 
view is at least equally probable, that if it was sunk 
in the soft mud of the swamp, or in some ancient 
grave, it may have reached the place where it was 
found even within the time since Europeans settled 
in the country. 

Sir Charles Lyell is inclined to think the delta of 
the Mississippi very ancient. " Although we can 
not estimate correctly how many years it may have 
required for the river to bring down from the upper 
country so large a quantity of earthy matter, — the 
data for such computation being as yet incomplete, 
— we may still approximate to a minimum of the 



298 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

time which such an operation must have taken, by 
ascertaining, experimentally, the annual discharge 
of water by the Mississippi, and the mean annual 
amount of solid matter contained in its waters. The 
lowest estimate of the time required would lead us 
to assign a high antiquity, amounting to many tens 
of thousands of years (probably more than 100,000), 
to the existing Delta." (p. 43.) But a recent '^Report 
upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi 
River," by Captain A. A. Humphreys, and Lieu- 
tenant H. L. Abbot, of the United States Topograph- 
ical Engineers, states that it is apparent " from many 
considerations, that the mouth of the river was once 
more than two hundred miles above where it now 
is, and that it is building out into the gulf new land 
at the rate of 262 feet every year." * Assuming 
this as the basis of calculation, we find but little 
more than 4000 years requisite, for the formation of 
the Delta from at least one hundred miles above 
New Orleans. Still another estimate is that of Major 
Stoddard, in a treatise on the State of Louisiana,! 
who says, "It is calculated that from. 1720, a period 
of eighty years, the land has advanced fifteen miles 
into the sea ; and there are those who assert that it 

* N. Am. Rev. for April, 1862. 

t Quoted in " Campaign to the Rocky Mountains," p. 240, by 
James Hildreth. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 299 

has advanced three miles within the memory of 
middle-aged men." These data give an increase 
of 990 feet in a year, requiring no more than 1160 
years for the formation of the entire Delta. 

These methods of computation are all too uncer- 
tain to have any value in discussions like this. 
Many geologists frankly confess that they are 
w^ holly unreliable. "Many ingenious calculations," 
says Page,* " have, no doubt, been made to approxi- 
mate the 'dates of certain geological events ; but 
these, it must be confessed, are more amusing than 
instructive. For example, so many inches of silt 
are yearly }aid dow^n in the Delta of the Mississippi — 
how many centuries will it have taken to accumulate 
a thickness of 30, 60, or 100 feet? Again, the 
ledges of Niagara are wasting at the rate of so many 
feet per century — how many years must the river 
have taken to cut its way back from Queenstown to 
the present falls? . . . For these and similar 
computations, the student will at once perceive we 
want the necessary uniformity of factor ; and, until 
we can bring elements of calculation as exact as 
those of astronomy to bear on geological chronology, 
it will be better to regard our ^eras,' and 'epochs,' 
and ' systems,' as so many terms, indefinite in their 

* Advanced Text-book of Geology, by David Page, F. G. S. 
Edinburgh, 1861, p. 385. 



300 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

duration, but sufficient for the magnitude of the 
operations embraced within their limits." 

4. Sir Charles Lyell mentions, but does not dwell 
upon, an alleged discovery of human remains in cer- 
tain coral reefs on the coast of Florida. These 
reefs are in a process of growth by which it is esti- 
mated that the land advances upon the sea at the 
rate of one foot in a century. " In a calcareous 
conglomerate forming part of the above-mentioned 
series of reefs, and supposed by Agassiz,- in accord- 
ance with his mode of estimating the rate of growth 
of those reefs, to be about 10,000 years old, some 
fossil human remains were found by Count Pourta- 
lis. They consist of jaws and teeth, with some 
bones of the foot." (Geol. Ev. p. 44.) This case 
is too indefinite to have any value. Nothing is 
stated as to the position of these remains, or the 
reasons for attributing to them an antiquity equal 
to that of the reef itself. For aught that appears, 
they may be of a similar class with the famous 
Guadaloupe skeleton found in a ledge of shell 
limestone now in process of formation on the 
shore of that island, which is now ascertained to 
be the remains of a Carib Indian killed in battle 
about two hundred years ago.* 

5. But the case most relied on to prove the re- 

* Dana's Manual of Geology, p. 580. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 3OI 

mote antiquity of man on earth appears to be 
that of the discovery of flint implements, constructed 
by man, in certain beds of river drift, accompanied 
by the remains of ancient animals in the valley of 
the Somme, in Picardy, France. 




Chalk. 



The above diagram will aid us in comprehending 
the phenomena of this valley. " It is situated geo- 
logically in a region of white chalk, with flints, the 
strata of which are nearly horizontal. The chalk 
hills which bound the valley are almost everywhere 
between 200 and 300 feet in height. On ascending 
to that elevation, we find ourselves on an extensive 
table-land, in which there are slight elevations and 
depressions. The white chalk itself is scarcely ever 
exposed at the surface on this plateau, although seen 
on the slopes of the hills as at a and b. The general 
surface of the upland region is covered continuously 
for miles in every direction by loam or brick earth 
(5), about five feet thick, devoid of fossils. To the 
wide extent of this loam the soil of Picardy chiefly 
owes its great fertility. Here and there we also 
observe on the chalk outlying patches of tertiary 
sand and clay (6), with eocene fossils, the remnants 



302 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

of a formation once more extensive, and which 
probably once spread in one continuous mass over 
the chalk, before the present system of valleys had 
begun to be shaped out." (GeoL Ev. p. io6.) In 
the bottom of the valley, which has an average 
width of one mile, there is a bed of gravel (i) from 
three to fourteen feet thick, and upon this, separated 
by a thin layer of impervious clay, a growth of peat 
(2) from ten to thirty feet in depth, through which 
the river now flows (<^). Upon the sides of the val- 
ley (3 and 4) are beds of gravel, resembling an- 
cient river banks, the lower one but little above the 
peat, the upper from eighty to a hundred feet higher. 
In these gravel beds are found the bones of numer- 
ous animals of races now extinct, such as the ele- 
phant, the rhinoceros, the horse, ox, deer, tiger, 
hyena, and others, and, mingled with these, various 
tools of flint, supposed to have been used for hatchets, 
spear-heads, knives, etc. 

The geological history of this valley is assumed to 
have been as follows : Originally the chalk forma- 
tion was continuous, filling the entire space. In 
some way a stream of water began to flow across 
this formation, by which the chalk was gradually 
worn away to the level of the upper gravel beds (4), 
and of a width equal to the present breadth of the 
valley at that level. Here the process was for a 



THE HUMAN RACE. 303 

time arrested, and the gravel bed, formed of the in- 
soluble materials not carried away, settled itself in 
the then bottom of the valley, reaching, of course, 
from side to side. During this period lived and died 
the animals above named, and their remains were 
mingled and imbedded in the alluvium of the 
stream. At the same time, some of the primitive 
race of men lived there, who, not knowing the use 
of iron, fashioned for themselves rude instruments 
out of the flints once contained in the chalk forma- 
tion, which they used for defense, and hunting, and 
for digging canoes, building huts, and the . like ; 
which implements, also, as they became worn or 
lost, were buried in the earth, along with the re- 
mains of the animals that perished there. After a 
long period, owing, probably, to an elevation of the 
land, the process of washing away was resumed, 
and the valley was further excavated to the level of 
the lower gravel beds (3), leaving behind the traces 
of the earlier alluvium, as we now find them. Then 
a like period of repose, followed by similar results, 
gave rise to the lower beds. Still another elevation 
caused a further scooping out of the valley to its 
present depth, leaving it filled with the bottom bed 
of gravel, which still remains. Upon this have since 
accumulated the vegetable remains which have cov- 
ered it with a bed of peat in some places more than 
thirty feet in thickness. 



304 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

In the facts and theory thus succinctly stated are 
found the data on which is based the remote an- 
tiquity of our race. The argument is twofold ; first, 
from the intermixture of the flint implements with 
the animal remains, showing that the men who 
fashioned and used the former were contemporaneous 
with the latter, and secondly, from the imrnense 
periods of time necessary to the geological changes 
described. We may consider these two classes of 
proof separately. 

First : does the association of human remains with 
those of animals now extinct, prove that they ex- 
isted contemporaneously in a former geological 
period? On this point I can not claim to advance 
an independent opinion of my own of any value, 
neither have I room for the details of this argument. 
I shall content myself with citing the testimony of 
savants who, if any, are competent to speak con- 
cerning it, and whose names are at least equal in 
weight with those of any who have spoken on the 
other side. 

Professor H. D. Rogers sums up the evidence in 
reference to this question as follows : — 

" The argument which we erect upon all these manifest 
indications of turbulent action in the waters which left 
this very promiscuous deposit is, that by pointing to an 
agency — an incursion,. we mean, of the by no means dis- 



THE HUMAN RACE. 305 

tant ocean — perfectly capable of invading the dry land 
within historic times, and mixing up its more recent sur- 
face objects with previously buried relics of an earlier 
or pre-historic epoch, we are debarred from assuming 
that the two classes of monuments were coeval^ and that 
from the imputed age of the one we are to infer the an- 
tiquity of the other. This is what those do who view all 
the surface drifts as but one formation, pointing to but one 
date, calling it the Diluvium. We pray the reader to 
observe that it is far from our meaning here that we can 
disprove the contemporaneousness of the flint-shaping 
men and the great antediluvian quadrupeds. We only 
assert, but assert confidently, that the fhenom-ena utterly 
fail to frove it. The burden of the case is with those 
who, treating the Diluvium as one and indivisible in the 
mode of formation, and in date, accept the mere fact of 
present association in it as evidence of co-existence in 
time. If, therefore, it can be shown, on an interpretation 
of geology in accordance with sound physical principles, 
that a redressing of the deposit may have taken place, the 
verdict must be, that this co-existence in time is not estab- 
lished, and the antediluvian antiquity of man must be 
cast out of the high court of science with a verdict of Not 
Proven.^'' * • . 

But it is not necessary to insist upon this negative 
conclusion. Let it be conceded that man was con- 
temporaneous with those ancient quadrupeds, the 

* Blackwood's Mag., Oct., i860, p. 430, Am. ed. 
20 



S06 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

question of their actual date remains still undeter- 
mined. Says a writer in the Westminster Review 
for April, 1863, who is evidently an able geologist 
and an ardent advocate of the doctrine of man's 
remote antiquity, — 

" Regarding the contemporaneousness of man with the 
great extinct Pachyderms as fully proved by the facts and 
reasonings already adduced, we have now to inquire how 
this contemporaneousness is to be accounted for ; whether 
by affirming the prolonged existence of these mammals 
into the human period, as ordinarily understood, or by 
antedating the commencement of the human period so as 
to place it in some part of what has been designated the 
Post-pliocene, as distinguished from the Recent epoch. 
The acceptance of the former solution might be justified 
by the unquestionable fact that the existence of the ^os 
Primogenius was prolonged even into the historic period, 
and seems favored by the preservation of the carcasses of 
the mammoth and rhinoceros. But it is obviously not 
required by either of these facts ; since many species of 
animals, whose first introduction dates much further back 
in geological time, are at present contemporaneous with 
man.; and carcasses once frozen up might be preserved 
for thousands of years as well as fgr hundreds, for millions 
as well as for thousands." 

That is, the mere fact that man was contempo- 
rary with those extinct animal tribes proves nothing 
as to his antiquity. They may have come down to 



THE HUMAN RACE. 307 

his day, or he may have begun to be in theirs ; and 
the bare juxtaposition of their remains in a geologi- 
cal formation can not tell us which. 

Professor Rogers is very explicit to the same 
effect : — 

" Let us admit that the wrought flints are truly con- 
temporaneous with the animals whose bones lie side by 
side with them, and that the deposit imbedding both is 
the general Diluvium or mammahan drift, do these facts 
determine the flints to have been fashioned in an age pre- 
ceding the usually assigned date of the birth of man? 
Logically, it must be conceded they do not ; for, inde- 
pendent of the absence or presence of these or other ves- 
tiges of man in the Diluvium, its antiquity, or relation to 
historic time, is obviously not ascertainable. Apart from 
human relics in, or over, or under the drift, how can we 
link it on to historic time at all? Before the flint imple- 
ments were found in this superficial formation, or so long 
as the traces of man were known only in deposits later 
than the Diluvium, it was deemed to belong to an age 
antecedent to the creation of man, and had, therefore, a 
relatively high antiquity assigned to it ; but now, granting 
that the relics of man have been authenticated as buried in 
it, is it sound reasoning, we would ask, to infer for these 
relics the very antiquity which was only attributable to the 
Diluvium because it was believed destitute of all such 
human vestiges.? The Diluvium of the geologists has, 
since the illustrious Cuvier, been always looked upon as 



308 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

something very ancient, simply because he and his suc- 
cessors, finding it replete with the remains of huge land 
mammals no longer living, never succeeded in detecting 
in it a solitary bone or tooth of any human being, nor 
indeed of anything indicative of man's existence ; but now 
that things indicative of man have been found, it is surely 
illogical, and a begging of the very question itself, to 
impute an age incompatible with his then existing. 

" As matters now stand, is it not as natural to infer the 
relative recency of th^e extinct Elefhas Primogenius^ 
and the other mammals of the Diluvium, from the co-exist- 
ence of the works of man with them, on the ground that' 
the human is the living and the modern race, as it is to 
deduce the antiquity of man from the once erroneously 
assumed greater age of those animals ? I would repeat, 
then, that a specially remote age is not attributable to the 
flint-carrying men of the Diluvium, simply because it is 
the Diluvium or the mammoth-imbedding gravel which 
contains them. If the association with these extinct ani- 
mals does intimate a long pre-historic antiquity, the evi- 
dences of this are to be sought in some of the other 
attendant phenomena." * 

We come, then, to the second argument derived 
from these alleged " attendant phenomena," viz., the 
geological changes recorded in the features of the 
Somme valley, and the immense periods of time 
which they must have required. 

* Blackwood's Mag., Oct., i860, pp. 428-431. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 309 

The most recent fact is the deposit of the peat-bed 
in the bottom of the valley. (See the diagram, p. 
301.) "Careful observations," says Sir Charles 
Lyell, " have not beea made with a view of calcu- 
lating the minimum of time which the accumulation 
of so dense a mass of vegetable matter must have 
taken. A foot in thickness of highly compressed 
peat, such as is sometimes reached in the bottom of 
the bogs, is obviously the equivalent in time of a 
much greater thickness of peat of spongy and loose 
texture, found near the surface. The workmen 
who cut peat, or dredge it up from the bottom of 
swamps and ponds, declare that, in the course of 
their lives, none of the hollows which they have 
found, or caused by extracting peat, have ever been 
refilled, even to a small extent. They deny, there- 
fore, that the peat grows. This, as M. Boucher de 
Perthes observes, is a mistake ; but it implies that 
the increase in one generation is not very apprecia- 
ble by the unscientific. 

" The antiquary finds near the surface Gallo- 
Roman remains, and, still deeper, Celtic weapons 
ot" the stone period. But the depth at which Roman 
works of art occur varies in different places, and is 
no sure test of age, because in some parts of the 
swamps, especially near the river, the peat is often 
so fluid that heavy substances may sink through it, 



3IO ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

carried down by their own gravity. In one case, 
hewever, M. Boucher de Perthes observed several 
large flat dishes of Roman pottery lying in a hori- 
zontal position in the peat, the shape of which must 
have prevented them from sinking or penetrating 
through the underlying peat. Allowing about four- 
teen centuries for the growth of the superincumbent 
vegetable matter, he calculated that the thickness 
gained in a hundred years would be no more than 
three French centimetres (1.17 inches). This rate 
of increase would demand many tens of thousands , 
of years (30,000) for the formation of the entire 
thickness of thirty feet." — Geolog, Evid.^ pp. no, 
III. 

But the formation of the peat could not have com- 
menced till after the process of excavating the val- 
ley was completed. The gravel bed, next above it, 
was carried away, leaving only the small portions, 
3, 3. (See diagram.) Previous to this was the for- 
mation of that bed; still further back, the denudation 
of the upper gravel bed, 4, and the wearing away' 
of the rock eighty feet or more between it and 3 ; 
and lastly, the formation of the upper bed with its 
inclosed bones and flint implements — a series of 
events involving an ascending scale of time into the 
past, the lower step of which was not less than 
30,000 years, and each higher one possibly still 



THE HUMAN RACE. 3 II 

longer. " No one," says the writer before quoted 
(p. 306), "who gives to these considerations their 
due weight, can hesitate in admitting that they carry 
back the origin of man into that dim remoteness in 
which all account of time is lost." * 

It is to be observed, that this computation assumes 
that the only agencies which have been concerned 
in producing the phenomena of this valley, are 
those that now exists both in kind and degree of 
activity. Sir Charles Lyell, and those who agree 
with him in his views on this subject, are, in geologi- 
cal parlance, Uniformitarians ; \ and his reasonings 
throughout, whether having relation to the filling 
of river deltas, the growth of peat, the denudation 
of valleys, and the like, are all based upon this 
assumption as a first principle of geological science. 

* Westm. Rev., April, 1863, p. 281. 

t Professor Rogers describes the two schools of geologists 
thus: "The Ujiiformitarian School, or, as sometimes desig- 
nated, ^uteitsts, who, interpreting the past changes in the earth's 
surface by the natural forces, especially the gentler ones, now in 
operation, overlook the more energetic and promptly acting 
ones ; the other, the School of the Catasiropkz'sts., perhaps hiore 
fitly termed the Paroxysttitsts, who, blind in the opposite eye, see 
only the most vehement energies of nature, the earthquake and 
the inundation, and take no account of the softer but unceasingly 
efficient agencies which gradually depress and lift the land, or 
silently erode and reconstruct it." — Blacfnv. Mag., Oct., i860, 
p. 432. 



312 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

Such assumption, however, is not to be conceded 
without question. Even if the growth of peat by 
vegetable deposit, under the present conditions of 
the surrounding country, is as slow as alleged, what 
does this prove as to its rate at a former period, when 
the land was covered with forests and dense un- 
dergrowths, and when, being So covered, its cli- 
matal conditions probably differed widely from those 
of the present time? So with the formation of the 
valley ; what evidence is there that it was ever 
caused by the action of running water at all, and 
not by those great subterranean powers to which 
both mountain ranges and valleys so generally owe 
their origin, becoming the bed of the Somme, not 
because excavated by it, but because previously ex- 
isting, and therefore determining the direction of the 
flow of the surface waters of that district? But 
without multiplying these inquiries, which so readily 
suggest themselves even to persons unskilled in 
geological speculations, let us listen to some who 
are worthy to speak authoritatively on the subject. 

Says the late President Hitchcock,* " The in- 
crease of peat varies so much, under different cir- 
cumstances, that i^ IS of no use to attempt to ascer- 
tain its rate of growth. On the continent of Eu- 
rope it is stated to have gained seven feet in thirty 

* Elem. Geology, p. 222. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 313 

years. — MaccullocKs Sys» of Geology^ vol. ii. 

P- 344-" 

Professor J. Duns, of New College, Edinburgh, 

relates, on the authority of Captain F. L. N. Thomas, 
that in the Hebrides peat has accumulated over some 
of the ancient pagan monuments to the depth of six 
feet in looo years.* 

As to the origin of the Somme valley, Professor 
Duns says, "Taking the depths of the valley as 
given above, are we warranted to conclude that the 
Somme once ran at the level of the higher gravels, 
and that it has cut a path for itself to its present 
depths? I believe that other and more -powerful 
agencies than the erosive power of running water 
have been at work in that part of France. Yet this 
question might be answered in the affirmative, and 
its value, as favorable to Sir Charles Lyell's views 
of the antiquity of man, destroyed by an appeal to 
facts for whose truth he himself is the voucher." 
Professor D. then refers to the facts adduced in 
Lyell's " Principles of Geology," in regard to the ero- 
sive power of running water, among which is the 
following : — 

" At the western base of ^tna, a current of lava, de- 
scending from near the summit of the great volcano, has 
flowed to the distance of five or six miles, and then reached 

♦ Science and Christian Thought, p. 249. 



^14 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

the alluvial plain of the Simeto, the largest of the Sicilian 
rivers, which skirts the base of y^tna, and falls into the 
sea a few miles south of Catania. The lava entered the 
river about three miles above the town of Adano, and not 
only occupied its channel for some distance, but, crossing 
to the opposite side of the valley, accumulated there in a 
rocky mass. Gemmellaro gives- the year 1603 as the date 
of the eruption. . . . In the course, therefore, of about 
two centuries, the Simeto has eroded a passage from fifty 
to several hundred feet wide, and in some parts from 
forty to fifty feet deep. The portion of lava cut through 
is in no part porpus or scoriaceous, but consists of a 
homogeneous mass of hard blue rock, somewhat inferior 
in weight to ordinary basalt, and containing crystals of 
olivine and glassy felspar. The general declivity of this 
part of the bed of the Simeto is not considerable. . . . 
The external forms of the hard blue lava are as massive 
as any of the most ancient trap rocks of Scotland." 

" From this point of view, then," remarks Profess- 
or Duns, " the question comes to be a very simple 
one. If the Simeto has in two hundred years cut 
a ravine, through hard volcanic rock, a hundred feet 
wide and fifty feet deep, how long would the Somme 
require to excavate its present valley in the soft 
chalk rocks over which it runs? In the latter case, 
we have not only hundreds, but thousands, of years 
at our disposal. It is, however, most likely that 
the explanation of the formation of the Somme val- 



THE HUMAN RACE. 315 

ley is to be found in connection with other natural 
forces." * 

Professor Duns quotes also from a paper by Sir 
Roderick Murchison, " On the Distribution of the 
Flint Drifts of the South-east of England," from 
which I take the following paragraphs : — 

" No analogy of tidal or fluviatile action can explain 
either the condition or position of the debris and unrolled 
flints and bones. On the contrary, by referring their dis- 
tribution to those great oscillations and ruptures by which 
the earth's surface has been so powerfully affected in 
former times, we may well imagine how the large area 
under consideration was suddenly broken up and sub- 
merged. This hypothesis seems to me to be an appeal 
to a vera causa commensurate with the results. As re- 
spects the south-east of England,! the operations must 
have been modern, in a geological sense. 

" Alluding to geologists who ' rank all ancient geologi- 
cal phenomena in the category of existing causation,' Sir 
R. Murchison says, ' The endeavor to refer all former 
fractures of the strata, as well as their overthrow on a great 
scale, as in the Alps, to causes of no greater intensity of 
action than those which now prevail, is in opposition to 
the obsei"vations I have made in every mountain chain as 
well as in the modest cliffs of Brighton and Dover.' The 
uniformitarlan theory, so strongly condemned here, is that 

♦ Science and Christian Thought, p. 229. 

t The same remark must applj to the opposite coast of France, 
separated from it only by the Straits of Dover. 



3l6 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

which Sir Charles Lyell has appHed throughout his dis- 
cussions on this question. He has assigned to Norway 
' a mean rate of continuous vertical elevation of two and 
a half feet in a century/ and assumed this as the standard 
rate of elevation in most other quarters. But if anything 
is sure in physical geology, the variable intensity of these 
agencies is. Indeed, this theory of uniform intensity is 
contradicted at every point. Many circumstances, for 
example, influence the rate at which mud is deposited in 
lakes, in river-courses, and in estuaries. The growth 
of peat depends much on climatal conditions, which vary 
in different degrees of latitude. Then what so capricious 
and so variable in its intensity as the force which makes 
itself known in the rocking earthquake, or as that which 
finds expression in the volcanic eruption.'' Even the 
introduction and disappearance of zoological species, of 
which so much has recently been made, not only refuse to 
»give that testimony in favor of uniformitarian views, so 
anxiously sought from them, but bear witness to facts of 
an entirely different kind. When, then, we sum up the 
strongest points in favor of an antiquity for man far more 
remote than is assigned to him in the Word of God, I 
think the conclusion is warranted, if not irresistible, that 
they signally fan to cast distrust on the biblical histori- 
cal record." * 

Professor Wilson, in his " Pre-historic Man " (vol. 
i. p. 50), after quoting Sir Charles Lyell on the 
flint implements and weapons at Abbeville and 
Amiens, adds, — 

* Science and Christian Thought, pp. 276, seq. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 317 

" Subsequent investigation by experienced geologists 
has somewhat modified the ideas here expressed. Pro- 
fessor J. S. Henslow, after minute observations, comes to 
the conclusion that ' no one can doubt the evidence to be 
in favor of a cataclysmic action, and rapid deposition of 
the lower and larger portion of the gravel at the spot near 
St. Acheul, where the hatchets occur.' Neither does he 
suppose that the facts witnessed by him indicate, of ne- 
cessity, that the bones of extinct mammals, found along- 
side of the flint implements, were contemporary with the 
unskilled workmen by whom these were wrought ; or that 
the evidence carries man altogether out of the range of 
human history. The fossil bones and the human imple- 
ments are mingled in a gravel formed as a re-disposition 
by fresh -water agency out of older materials^ probably 
})elonging to very different periods^ though the most 
modern of them undoubtedly pertain to a period long prior 
to the oldest dates of Gaulish history." — Athenceum^ 

Oct. 20, 1869, p. 5 16. 

t 

M. Elie de Beaumont, the distinguished French 
savant^ concurs in this view^. At a meeting of a 
special commission of naturalists and geologists, 
French and English, called to examine a human 
tooth and jaw found in the flint beds at Moulin 
Quignon, near Abbeville, M. Beaumont "made a 
statement so positive and so unexpected as, to judge 
by the contemporary reports, produced an unusual 
and almost electric sensation on the scientific audi- 



3l8 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

tory. His opinion, or decision, was to this effect - 
that the Moulin Quignon beds are not ' diluvium ^ 
they are not even alluvia, deposited by the en 
croachments of rivers on their banks, but are sim 
ply composed of washed soil deposited on the 
flanks of the valley by excessive falls of rain, 
such as may be supposed to have occurred excep- 
tionally once or twice in a thousand years. A 
week later, this geologist reiterated his opinion to 
the same illustrious assembly, adding that the age 
of this formation, belongs, in his opinion, to the 
stone period, or is analogous to that of the peat 
mosses, and the Swiss lake habitations." — Edinb, 
Rev,, July, 1863, p. 138. 

Enough, then, I trust, has been said to show 
that the facts presented us by the Somme valley 
do not bear out the conclusions derived from them 
in regard to the remote antiquity of man on earth. 
Neither the data themselves, nor the reasoning 
employed, are to be accepted without question. 
We dismiss the case, therefore, by citing the fol- 
lowing judicious and weighty language of Profess- 
or Rogers : - — 

"To the interrogation. How far are we entitled 
to attribute a high antiquity to these earliest phys- 
ical records of mankind, from the nature of the 
containing and overlying sedimentary deposits? 



THE HUMAN RACE. 319 

my response again is, that as the two schools of 
geologists now named differ widely in their trans- 
lation of geologic time of all phenomena of the 
kind here described, this question . . . does 
not admit, in the -present state of the science^ of a 
specific or quantitative answer. 

" In conclusion, then, of the whole inquiry, con- 
densing into one expression my answer to the 
general question whether a remote pre-historic an- 
tiquity for the human race has been established 
from the recent discovery of specimens of man's 
handiwork in the so-called Diluviuni, / maintain 
that it is not proven^ — by no means asserting that 
it can be disproved, but insisting simply that it 
remains Not Proven'' — Blackw. Mag,, Oct., i860, 
p. 438. 

The valley of the Somme is confessedly the most 
important locality in which human relics have been 
found indicative of a high human antiquity. I shall 
not, therefore, go into an examination of other simi- 
lar localities in France, Sicily, and elsewhere, nor 
of the "bone caverns" in England, Belgium, etc. 
To the evidence they furnish, the same arguments 
apply as those which have now been advanced; in- 
deed, the matured opinions of Professor Rogers and 
others, which we have cited, were professedly given 
in view of all the facts presented by them. 



320 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

6. There is another class of facts which is often 
adduced for the same purpose as the preceding, 
derived from extensive human remains found in 
peat beds, in shell mounds, or ancient rubbish 
heaps, and in the lakes of Switzerland, and other 
parts of Europe. 

These peat beds in the Danish islands are from 
ten to thirty feet deep, and contain trunks of firs, 
oaks, and birches, of great size, and of species not 
now growing in that country. There are found in 
them flint, bronze, and iron implements, with the 
bones of man and the various domestic animals. 
The refuse mounds consist mostly of collections of 
oyster and clam shells, mingled with bones of quad- 
rupeds, birds, and fish, flint knives, hatchets, and 
arrows, fragments of pottery, etc. They are called 
by the Danes kjdkken-mddding^ i. e., kitchen 
refuse heaps, composed as they are so largely of 
the remains of animals used for food. The 
relics found in the lakes indicate the former ex- 
istence of villages built upon piles in the shallow 
waters. 

All these traces of man prove the existence of 
tribes of a pre-historic people inhabiting the greater 
part of Europe, the memorials of which are other- 
wise lost in remote antiquity. A careful study of 
these remains has led investigators to divide them 



THE HUMAN RACE. 321 

into three classes, according to the periods in which 
they are supposed to have Hved, called respectively 
the stone, the bronze, and the iron age, from the 
materials and workmanship of the implements then 
in use. 

The question with which we are now interested re- 
lates to the time when -these primitive people ex- 
isted. Sir Charles Lyell, after summing up the 
evidence on this point, and showing that the three 
ages were of very unequal antiquity, pronounces all 
the calculations hitherto made by archaeologists and 
geologists of merit respecting it, " as being tenta- 
tive," and "a rough approximation to the truth." 
He adds, "They have led to the assignment of 
4000 and 7000 years before our time as the lowest 
antiquity which can be ascribed to certain events 
and monuments ; but much collateral evidence will 
be required to confirm these estimates, and to decide 
whether the number of centuries has been under or 
over rated." — Geol, Evid,^ p. 273. 

M. Frederic Troyon, in his work entitled " Ha- 
bitations Lacustres des Temps Anciens et Mo- 
dernes," takes care to say, near the commencement 
of the volume, "To avoid all mistake, it is well to be 
understood that the stone age [the oldest of all] , of 
which we find -remains in the lakes and tombs, is 
21 



322 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

considered in this work as posterior to the deluge 
mentioned by Moses." * 

But the most important fact relating to this primi- 
tive population of Europe is, that whatever be the 
exact date at which they lived, they belonged to the 
Celtic race. Dr. Keller, than whom there is no 
higher authority on the subject, remarks as fol- 
lows : — 

" It is very evident that the earHest founders came into 
Middle Europe as a pastoral people, and possessed the 
most important domestic animals, such as the dog, the 
cow, the sheep, the goat, and the horse. All these ani- 
mals have their origin not in Europe, but in Asia, and 
were brought here by the settlers through all their long 
wanderings from the east. They understood agriculture, 
and cultivated grains (-wheat and barley), also flax — plants 
which, in like manner, they did not meet with in Europe, 
but brought with them out of Asia, or received them by 
commerce from the south." (p. 310.) 

" It has already been remarked, that on comparing the 
implements of stone and bronze from the lajke dwellings 
with those of the Swiss museums, some of which were 
found in graves and tumuli, and others met with by chance 
in the fields, we are not able to discover the smallest dif- 
ference, either in material, form, or ornamentation, and 
we consequently consider ourselves authorized in ascrib- 

* Quoted in Appendix to " The Lake Dwellings," by Dr. Kel- 
ler, p. 14. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 323 

ing all these specimens, which appear to have come from 
the same factories to the industry of one and the same 
people. The identity of the inhabitants of the main land 
and those of the lake dwellings appears still more striking 
if we compare the settlements founded by both classes of 
the people as well as their whole arrangement." (p. 311.) 

" In the very same graves and tumuli, implements of 
stone and bone, precisely alike in form, have been found 
lying together, and the same remark will apply in other 
graves to implements of bronze and iron. The products 
of the potter's art, also, are seen with all their character- 
istic peculiarities, through all the stages of their develop- 
ment, and form links in the outward phenomena of the 
different periods." (p. 312.) 

" Knowing that history makes no mention of any other 
people but the Celts, who, in the very earliest ages, pos- 
sessed the middle of Europe, and, in the later times, 
received their civilization from the Romans, we believe 
that it would be contrary to all the facts adduced, to arrive 
at any conclusion but this — that the builders of the lake 
dwellings were a branch of the Celtic population of Swit- 
zerland, but that the earlier settlements belong to the pre- 
historic period, and had already fallen into decay before 
the Celts took their place in the history of Europe." 
(P- 313-)* 

As to who the people of these earlier settlements 

* The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and other Parts of Eu- 
rope, by Dr. Ferdinand Keller, Pres. Antiq. Assoc, of Zurich. 
Translated by John Edward Lee, F. S. A., F. G. S., etc. 



324 ANTIQUITY AND UNITY OF 

were, Dr. Keller remarks, in a section entitled 
" Origin and Age of the Iron Implements of Marin," 
" We can not refrain from once more repeating what 
we have stated in the previous parts of this volume. 
There can be no doubt that from the earliest ages 
the above mentioned countr}^ and also the land 
beyond the Jura, was inhabited by races of a Celtic 
origin." (p. 262.) * 

I am not aware that this author has assigned, 
even by conjecture, any specific date to the relics 
which he describes, other than " a very high an- 
tiquit}^" (p. 292.) 

M. Troyon's opinion is that " the population of 
the first period were a primitive people, perhaps be- 
longing to a Finnish or Iberian race, which came 
out of Asia several thousand years before our era, 
and, following the course of the Rhone, or the 
Rhine, wandered into the valleys of the Alps." f 

If these opinions may be accepted, — and I know of 
none more probable, or freer from objections, — they 
go to confirm, rather than to weaken, the scriptural 
chronology as to the antiquity of man. These prim- 
itive people were a branch of the great Indo-Eu- 
ropean family, the origin of which was in Asia, as 
v(^as that of the domestic animals they brought with 
them. As to the " several thousand years before 

* Appendix N. t Appendix to Lake Dwellings, p. 395. 



THE HUMAN RACE. 325 

our era," one or two thousand are sufficient to meet 
all the exigencies of the case. 

In view, then, of all the facts adduced by geology, 
w^e are warranted, I think, in the following definite 
conclusion, viz., that in order to account for every 
case of the existence of human relics in Western 
Europe, whether bones, implements, or dwellings, 
whether in caves or French drift, we do not need 
an antiquity of more than six or eight centuries 
before Christ, while we may go back twenty cen- 
turies and be still more than a thousand years 
distant from the Noachian deluge — a time sufficient 
to permit man to wander a long way, and do a 
great many things. 



APPENDIX. 



A. Page 25. 
CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 

The conception of Bunsen's work is a vast one. 
" Egypt's Place in Universal History ! " Egypt ! that 
land of pyramids ; whose kings are enumerated in history 
under thirty distinct dynasties ; whose monuments ante- 
date the oldest historic records ; whose language has con- 
sumed the lives of some of the greatest scholars ; the 
source whence the wisest of the ancient Greeks drew 
their wisdom ; whose empire had extended from the Nile 
to the Indus, before Greece and Rome had even a name ! 
And can Egypt's place in history be determined and 
described? Bunsen has attempted it. He has placed 
himself on her ancient monuments, and surveyed the 
immense periods of her historic existence, and, as he 
thinks, ascertained her "place" in the history of man. 

To his own great industry and learning he has joined 
that of all the learned Egyptologers from Champollion to 
Lepsius ; in short, what human learning and industiy 
could do to fix Egypt's place in history, it would seem 
has been done by Bunsen in these five volumes, 

327 



328 APPENDIX, A. 

It is with his system — that of chronology — that we 
aie now concerned. We shall give that system, and the 
principal facts and reasons on which it rests, as near as 
we can, in the author's own words. In general, we 
think these facts and reasons need only to be stated in 
order to be discarded as insufficient for the basis of such 
superstructure : — 

*' SYNOPSIS OF THE FOUR AGES OF THE WORLD. 

" First Age of the World. 

"Ancient Antediluvian History — from the Creation to the 
Flood ; Primitive Formation of Language ; and the Beginning 
of the Formation of Mythology. 

"The Historical Primitive World (I., H., III.). (1-10,000 
Year of Man; 20,ooo-io,oqo B. C.). 

'* First Period (I.). — Formation and Dej)osit of Sinism 
(20,000-15,000 B. C). 

"Primitive language, spoken with rising or falling cadence — 
elucidated by gesture — accompanied by pure pictorial writing ; 
every syllable a word, every word a full substantive, one repi*e- 
sentable by a picture. 

" Deposit of this language in Northern China (Shensi), in the 
country of the source of the Houngho-Sinism. The earliest po- 
larization of religious consciousness : Kosmos or Universe, and 
the Soul of Personality. Objective worship, the firmament; sub- 
jective worship, the soul of parents, or the manifestation of 
divine in the family. 

" Second Period of the World (H.). — Formation and 
Deposit of Primitive Turanism : The eastern polarization of 
Sinism (15,000-14,000 B. C). 

"Pure agglutinative language: formation of polysyllabic 
words by means of unity of accent (word accent). 

" Origin of particles, words no longer substantive and full, but 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 329 

denoting the mutual relation of persons and things ; finally, of 
complete parts of speech. 

" Deposit of this stage of formation in Thibet (Botya lan- 

"Germ of mythology in substantiation of inanimate things 
and of properties. 

" Third Period (HI.)- — Formation and Deposit of Khamism 
and the Flood: Western polarization of Sinism ( 14,000- 11, oco 
B. C). 

"Formation of stems into roots producing derivative words ; 
complete parts of speech beyond the distinction between full 
words (nouns, verbs, and adjectives) and formative words 
(14,000). 

"Declensions and conjugations with affixes and endings; 
stage of the Egyptian (13,000). 

"Commencement of symbolical Hieroglyphics, i. e., picture 
writing; but without the introduction of the phonetic element or 
designation of sound (12,000). 

"Deposit of this language in Egypt, owing to the earliest 
immigration of West Asiatic primitive Semites. Invention of, 
or advancement in, hieroglyphic signs : primitive syllabarium 
(11,000). 

"The Flood. — Cojtviclsion in Northern Asia. Emigration of 
the Aryans out of the country of the sources of the Oxus (Gihon) 
and Jaxartes, and of the Semites out of the country of the sources 
of the Euphrates and Tigris (11,000-10,000). 

" Second Age of the World. 

"Ancient Postdiluvian History — from the Emigration after 
the Flcfod down to Abraham in Mesopotamia. Formation of the 
historical tribes and empires of Asia (10,000-2878 B. C)." * 

We will not occupy space with the details of this 
* Egypt's Place in Universal History, vol. iv. pp. 485-497. 



330 APPENDIX, A. 

" age." Suffice it to say, the author exhibits the same 
wonderful knowledge in regard to the history of the 
" Egyptian deposit " from 10,000 down to 4000 B. C, 
as in reference to the preceding age. He gives definite 
Hates for numerous events in the civil and religious his- 
tory, e.g.: — 

B. c. 

The formation of Osirism, ..... 10,000 

Close of the republican period, . . . 9,086 
Duration of the sacerdotal kings, according to Manetho, 

1855 years; end of the sacerdotal kings, . . 75231 

Beginning of hereditary kings in Lower Egypt, . . 55413 
Duration of them according to Manetho, 1790 years; 

end, ....... 3,624 

Perfect formative language, .... 4,000 

Menes, the first king of the first dynasty, . . . 3>623 

Abraham, . . . . . . 2,878 

The exodus, . . .... . . 1,320 

It is safe to say, in general, that such a mass of pure 
assumption as our author has here put forth is nowhere 
else to be found in any professedly historical or chron- 
ological work. He frequently says, " According to 
Manetho," while Manetho affords not the least support 
for the declaration put forth on his authority. 

The following sentences are valuable, as showing our 
author's manner of assuming his premises and drawing 
his conclusions, as well as exhibiting a cardinal principle 
of his work : — 

"But if we find, almost four thousand years before our era, a 
mighty empire possessing organic members of a very ancient 
type, a peculiar written character and. national art and science, 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 33I 

we must admit that it required thousands of years to bring them 
to maturity in the valley of the Nile. If, again, its language be 
shown to be a deposit of Asiatic, and by no means the oldest 
formation, it will be admitted upon reflection to be a sober con- 
clusion that we require some twenty thousand years to explain 
the beginnings of the development of man, which have been only 
once violently interrupted in its primeval birthplace." (Vol. iv. 
p. 21.) 

" The question as to the place of Egypt, in historical chro-. 
nology, is thus at once changed to that of its place in the whole 
development of man. We pass out of the domains of chro- 
nology and history into that of pure philosophy." (Vol. iv. 
p. 22.) 

We have here a statement of a fundamental principle 
of the author — a principle by which he is guided, and 
which underlies his whole work. It is the founding of 
a system of chronology on the principles of philosophy. 
We are fond of philosophy when it is sound and in its 
place ; and we do not assert that it has no connection 
with chronology. When the materials for a strict his- 
torical chronology do not exist, we have no objections to 
philosophy doing her utmost to elucidate and present 
probable truth. But the danger is, that she will transcend 
the limits of her just domain. This we think she has 
done under the guidance of Bunsen. She magnifies the 
difficulties arising from the received chronology of Bible 
history, and then resorts to expedients that destroy the 
truthfulness of that history. Certainly in such a work as 
this she should be watched, and her supposed facts and 
her expedients be severely scrutinized. If our faith in 
Bible history is to be undermined by philosophy, let us 
know what is proposed in its place. 



332 APPENDIX, A. 

The principal facts on which the author rests his sys- 
tem, and the mode of argumentation, are foreshadowed 
in the following extracts : — 

'* Philosophy has discovered the existence of two vast branches 
of cognate organic languages, the Semitic and Iranian. The 
stage anterior to Semism is Khamism. This antecedent stage is 
antediluvian. People history is postdiluvian. We find in it, 
thousands of years before Menes, first of all a world-wide empire 
— the realm of Nimrod, the Kushite, . . . which probably 
embraced Egypt as well as Western Asia, the district of the 
Euphrates and Tigris. 

" If we connect these views with the historical development 
before us, we shall find, in the first place, ancient history divided 
into antediluvian and postdiluvian. For the former we require 
ten thousand years, which we can prove proximately to be the 
extent of the latter period before Christ." (Vol. iv. p. 24.) 

"The legends of the classics about colonies from Egypt, in so 
far as they have any historical foundation, are explainable, just 
as are the expressions in the Bible that Kanaan, who wa's driven 
back out of Lower Egypt, was the son of Kham." * (Vol. iv. 

P- 30.) 

" I must, on the other hand, repudiate all historical connec- 
tion between the Helleno-Italic mythology and the Indians, or 
even their patriarchs, the Iranians and Bactrians." (Vol. iv. 

P- 31.) 

"We start, therefore, with this premise, that in the Egyptian 
we have obtained a fixed chronological point, and, in fact, the 
highest in general history. In it we find a perfectly formed lan- 
guage which we can prove to have been in existence about the 
middle of the fourth millennium B. C. We have, moreover, the 
means of determining approximately the epoch of the beginnings 
of regal government immediately before Menes. We therefore 

* A reference to the expulsion of the Shepherds from Egypt. 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 333 

arrive at the very threshold of the foundation of language." (Vol. 
iv. p. 45.) 

With regard to ^' the premise " here named, with which 
the author starts, we simply remark here, that we do not 
admit it. Nor do we admit the existence of the " per- 
fectly formed language " which he says he " can prove 
to have existed in the middle of the fourth millennium 
B. C." See remai;ks on this point below. 

*' The result of criticism goes to prove, however, that we can 
not compute, by the, ordinarily received chronology, the interval 
between the above starting-point of the present life of man and 
the oldest conquests in Asia, — those of Nimrod, — or the interval 
between them both and Abraham, the first historical personage 
in the Semitic reminiscences. 

" On the other hand, the period of twenty-one thousand years, 
which has been adopted by all the great astronomers of the day, 
for the deviation of the earth's axis, brings us to two resting- 
places. Hie consequence of the deviation is a change of the 
proportion of the cold and heat at the poles, the greatest of 
which gives eight days more cold or heat. 

"At the present time, in the northern temperate zone, spring 
and summer are seven days longer than autumn and winter; 
in the southern hemisphere, consequently, the proportion is 
reversed. 

" In the year 1248 this favorable change in our hemisphere 
had reached its maximum, namely, eight days more warmth, 
and therefore the same number of days less cold. Consequently, 
after a gradual decrease during five thousand two hundred and 
fifty years, in the year 6498, the two seasons will be in equilibrio, 
but in the year 11,748 (five thousand two hundred and fifty years 
more) the hot period will have reached its lowest point. 

"Now, if we calculate backward five thousand two hundred 
and fifty years from 1248, we shall find that in the year 4002 



334 APPENDIX, A. 

B. C. the two seasons must have been in equilibrio in our hemi- 
sphere. In the year 9252 B. C. the cold season had attained its 
maximum. The opposite or most favorable division of heat and 
cold took place, thei-efpre, in the year 19,752 B. C. 

"This epoch explains very simply the reason why the north 
pole is surrounded with perpetual ice only from about the seven- 
tieth degree, when at the south pole it is found at the sixty-fifth. 
In other words, the history of progressive human civilization, 
with which we are acquainted, is comprised within one hemi- 
sphere, and under climacteric accidents the most favorable to 
advancement. 

" Now, as we must suppose that the date of the commencement 
of our race was the most favorable both for its origin and con- 
tinuance, and as, on the other hand, the catastrophe which we 
call the flood would have arrived at the next unfavorable period 
for our hemisphere, that epoch, the central point of which is the 
year 9250 B. C, would seem the most probable one for the 
change in climatic relations. This assumption is confirmed 'by 
the most ancient monuments and traditions.* The chronology 
of Egypt shows still more clearly than traditions preserved in 
the Rabbinical Book of the Origines, that the flood of Noah 
could not have taken place later than about 10,000 B. C, and 
could not have taken place much earlier. 

" The only question, therefore, is, whether the history of the 
human race, and consequently the origines of the primitive 
world, date from the above-mentioned favorable epoch, about 
20,000 B. C, or whether we are justified in going back to the last 
epoch but one, or about 40,000 B. C." (Vol. i v. 52-54.) 

The following extracts show an important part of the 
argument adopted to maintain these assumptions : — 

* What monuments and traditions.? As far as we know, even 
our author has failed to specify them ; unless such a specification 
is intended by his brief allusions to the mythological periods of 
some of the ancient nations. 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 335 

" The formative words in the Egyptian mark the transition 
from Sinism to Khamism — from the particle language to the 
language of parts of speech. . . . The earliest Turanism to 
the east of Khamism marks the first stage of organic language, 
i. e., of language with the parts of speech. The second is Kham- 
ism, i. e., the stage of language we meet with in Egypt." (Vol. 
iv. p. 558.) 

" The shortest line from inorganic language to organic is that 
of Sinism through primitive Turanism to primitive Semism, the 
deposit of which in the valley of the Nile we have in Egyptian. 
The last emigration was probably that of the Aryans to the coun- 
try of the five rivers. The oldest hymns in the country of the 
Punj*aub go back to 3000 B. C. This community of language 
must then, at all events, be supposed to have existed much ear- 
lier than 3000 B. C. They had, consequently, at that time long 
got over the stage of underived Iranism and Semism. Between 
10,000 and 4000 B. C, the vast step in Asiatic advancement from 
Khamism to Semism, and from Semism to Iranism, was made. 
If the step from Latin to Italian be taken as a unit, this previous 
step must be reckoned at least at ten or at twenty." (Vol. iv. 
p. 562.) 

" From all this it appears that the period of one great revolu- 
tion of the earth's axis (twenty-one thousand years) is a very 
probable time for the development of human language in the 
shortest line ; and that the double of this, which we should be 
obliged to suppose, would be a highly improbable one." (Vol. iv. 

P- 563.) 

" It has been shown at the commencement of this volume, that 
we may hope by a combination of researches' and observations 
to establish that mankind has only terminated one astronomical 
period, and commenced the second in the year 1240 of our era; 
and there are reasons for placing the intermediate catastrophe in 
the most unfavorable part of that period, or about 10,000 B. C. 
As to subdivisions, if too large a space has been assumed in this 
one, there is room enough for it in the other. We see no reason 



33^ APPENDIX, A. 

for going back to a preceding epoch of twenty-one thousand 
years ; but less than one period is impossible, were it only 
because of the stubborn fact of the strata of languages. To what 
point, then, is Egypt brought back by this calculation? To the 
middle, at least, or the ninth millennium of man, as the period of 
the immigration of the western branch of our race into the val- 
ley of the Nile. But this is the very close of the primitive world 
in the strict sense, that is to say, of the history of our race before 
the great convulsion of that part of Central Asia to which we 
turn as the cradle of mankind. This convulsion, which we know 
as the flood of Noah, in all probability coincides with that epoch 
of the northern hemisphere when the temperature was lowest, or 
from 9000 to 10,000 B. C, just as the origin of our race coincides 
with that period of it when the temperature was highest, which 
was ten thousand five hundred years earlier. 

"If this principle be correct, the Egyptians can have known 
nothing of the flood, allusions to which we find everywhere 
among the Iranians and Semites ; and in truth no such tradition 
is current among them, any more than it was among the old 
Turanians and Chinese." (Vol. iv. p. 564.) 

In regard to the above hypothesis of the great antiquity 
of man on the earth, and the arguments in support of it, 
we think little needs to be said by way of confutation. 
We must, however, briefly state the reasons why we do 
not receive the hypothesis, and ^think the arguments 
inconclusive. We might use the words " absurd," " irra- 
tional," and other stronger disparaging epithets, in rela- 
tion to the author's reasoning, and think ourselves justified 
in their use. But the use of such terms generally weakens 
an argument. For what one calls absurd, another regards 
merely as inconclusive, a third, fair reasoning, and a 
fourth, sound argument. We, therefore, will endeavor to 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 337 

meet the argument of our author in a sober, matter-of-fact 
style of reasoning. 

And first as to his astronomical argument. The sub- 
stance of the argument is this : On account of " the devia- 
tion of the earth's axis," the northern and southern hemi- 
spheres enjoy unequal degrees of heat and cold. When 
this difference is at the extreme, the seasons of " spring 
and summer are eight days longer than autumn and win- 
ter." But " the history of progressive human civilization 
with which we are acquainted is comprised within one 
hemisphere, and under climacteric accidents the most 
favorable to advancement." These "favorable climac- 
teric accidents " are the seasons of spring and summer 
being longer than autumn and winter. Therefore, as 
man has mostly lived in the northern hemisphere, his 
creation must have taken place when the heat was great- 
est in this hemisphere, i. e., about 20,000 B. C, and the 
flood must have taken place about 10,000 B. C, when the 
cold was at its maximum. 

In regard to this argument, we remark : First, we 
neither admit the premises nor the conclusion. Having 
passed some fifteen years in the southern part of that belt 
which has been most densely peopled by the race, we 
have a little experience that bears directly on the point. 
We thought and felt decidedly, that the cool season was 
more favorable to physical and mental vigor, to physical 
and mental development, than the hot season. And, if 
we mistake not, such were decidedly the thoughts and 
feelings of all in that land who had much to do in the 
various spheres of bodily and mental activity. So that if 
22 



33^ APPENDIX, A. 

we were to use B.unsen's premises, we should draw the 
conclusion the opposite to that which he has drawn. 
We confess we should never advance this argument to 
prove that man was created about 10,000 B. C. ; but we 
think it worth as .much in support of such an epoch of 
the creation as that of our author in favor of the higher 
one of ten thousand years earlier. 

Again, in point of fact, in what climate has the race of 
man attained to the highest degree of development in 
both body and mind ? If we look at the present genera- 
tion, we certainly cannot point to the mildest parts of the 
temperate zone as furnishing the best specimens of intel- 
lectual and physical vigor. Edinburgh and Glasgow are 
almost 56° N. Lat. ; London is almost 52° ; Berlin is far- 
ther north, and Paris is about 49° N. It is true that, as 
we go back into the early historic times, we find the 
region of human superiority a little further south. 
Greece is between 37° and 45° N., and Italy between 40° 
and 46° N. ; and Palestine, and Egypt, and Chaldea were 
still further south. But the ancients were not equal to 
the moderns. The reason was, they, through love of 
ease, delighted in the softness of tropical climates, where 
a little effort suffices to meet the wants of a degenerate 
physical nature. They settled along the banks of such 
streams as the Nile, the Euphrates and Tigris, the Indus 
and Ganges. It was when they settled in the more north- 
ern and cooler climates that the greater strength of body 
and mind was developed in the race. Where, we would 
ask, was the garden of Eden ? Mount Ararat is in about 
40° N. Lat. ; and since geologists tell us that the mighty 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 339 



currents which have swept over the earth, the marks of 
which are now seen on the solid rocks, were from north 
to south, and that which caused the deluge of Noah was 
probably in the same direction, the ark floated south dur- 
ing that one hundred and fifty days ; hence the garden of 
Eden was north of the mountain where it rested, and was 
therefore about in the middle of the temperate zone ; 
whereas, according to our author's theory and argument, 
it should have been further south. We beg our readers 
not to spend time to criticise this argument, for in itself 
considered it will not bear criticism. We only put it 
forth to meet the reasoning of our author. In fact, the 
line of argumentation is about parallel to his, and equally 
conclusive. If we placed any value on the argument 
from heat and cold as aiding to fix the epoch of the crea- 
tion of man, we should be inclined to place the epoch at 
the time when the heat and cold of our hemisphere were 
in equilibrio, which would be for the last time (according 
to our author) about 4002 B. C. This differs only two 
years from the commonly received chronology. But we 
do not believe in this heat-and-cold argument. Even if 
we should admit the premises, that the time when spring 
an'd summer are eight days longer in our hemisphere than 
autumn and winter, is most favorable to human develop- 
ment, it would by no means follow that the creation of 
man took place at that time. 

We must devote a little space to our author's chro- 
nology of the patriarchs, especially to his era of 
Abraham. We have here some rich specimens of 



340 

" philosophy." We need do little more than exhibit the 
philosopher's theory in his own words : — 

"We will now take a glance at dates. Here the first step 
undoubtedly must be to abandon the views and system adopted 
by the narrator, from the impossibility of an historian dealing 
with men who beget children like other people at the age of 
thirty, and live more than four hundred years afterwards. Those 
upon whom this consideration fails to make an impression may 
still be staggered by the fact, that upon this calculation the 
patriarcii Noah lived down to the time of Abraham,* without 
troubling himself about the history of the world. Neither can 
we venture, like the authors of the Septuagint, to falsify the 
text,t and, in order to get rid of the disproportion, add one hun- 
dred years to the ages of these geographical patriarchal mon- 
sters at the time of their marriage. We have, therefore, but one 
alternative — to ascertain which of the two is the really tradi- 
tional date, that of the ages after the birth of the first son, or that 
of the whole date ; to ascertain, in other words, whether the nar- 
rator had the authority of tradition for the former date, and, in 
order to assist his chronology, added, at random, thirty or forty 
years to their ages when the first son was born ; or whether he 
found the whole sum total recorded, and deducted from it what- 
ever suited his purpose. J The fact of his not stating the sum 
total would incline us to adopt the former view. But in the 
immediately preceding entries about Noah and Shem, we can 
prove that the complete sum total is the actual traditional date. 

* This is a real objection or difficulty if we adopt the Hebrew 
chronology, but it entirely vanishes if we adopt that of the Sep-, 
tuagint. 

t This is amusing, standing, as it does, in connection with the 
author's radical alteration of the text of Scripture. 

X On such suppositions, what becomes of the inspiration of 
the Scriptures, or even of their authenticity.? Yet our author 
professes great reverence and regard for the Bible. He would 
not alter a date. 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 34I 

In each case it is six hundred years, which was shown to be the 
original Chaldaic equation between lunar and solar years. We 
must, therefore, assume that it is so here also." * 

The postdiluvian times to Abraham are thus disposed 
of (the tabular form being somewhat abridged for the 
sake of space) : — 

" There are three periods or divisions : — 

*' A. Sem (Arapakithis), i. e., the primeval land of the Kas- 
dim (Chaldees), the frontier mountains of Armenia toward 
Assyria, four hundred and thirty-eight years. 

" B. Selah, ' The Mission,' four hundred and thirty-three 
years; Heber, the settler over the river (Tigris), four hundred 
and sixty-four years; Peleg, derivation, partition, four hundred 
and thirty-nine years ; Yohtan (father of thirteen South Arabian 
races). 

" C. R6Hu, district of the shepherd country of Edessa (Rohi), 
two hundred and thirty-nine years ; Serug (in Osro6ne, Sarug, 
west of Edessa), two hundred and thirty years. 

" D. Nahor goes to Ur of the Kasdim (Chaldees), one hundred 
and forty-eight years, 

"Terah leaves Ur of the Chaldees, and goes to Haran (Karra), 
a day's journey south of Edessa, two hundred and seventy-five 
years (70-+- 205). 

" Nahor sets out from Sarug to Ur of the Chaldees, one hun- 
dred and forty-eight years (29+ 119). 

*' Terah sets out from Ur to Haran, that is, back toward Os- 
roSne, on the way to Canaan. He lives two hundred and five 
years. At the age of seventy he begets three sons in Ur. 

"There is a remarjiable closeness between the first three 

* Our eyes have not fallen on this proof. We know that Jose- 
phus (Antiq. i. iii. 9) speaks of a "great year" of six hundred 
pommon years; but what has that to do with the six hundredth 
year of the life of Noah, as the date of the flood, and the duration 
of Shem's life? It is all assumption. 



342 APPENDIX, A. 

(geographical historical) dates, Arphaxad, Selah, and Eber : 
Arphaxad four hundred and thirty-eight years, Selah four hun- 
dred and thirty-five, and Heber four hundred and sixty-four. 

" Supposing Arphaxad to represent the duration of the Semitic 
settlement Arapakithis, the mountainous district above Assyria, 
prior to the memory of man, 'The Mission' would represent 
the journey towards the plains three years before the close of 
this migration, and 'Heber' would represent the period when 
the migrating race passed over the Upper Tigris on their way to 
the Upper Mesopotamia. The year 464 would, in that case, be 
the one in which they entered Mesopotamia proper, and the 
tribe must have remained in ^ compact body two hundred and 
thirty-nine years before a portion of them commenced the great 
migration southward, the result of which was the foundation of 
the kingdom of Southern Asia." (Vol. iii. p. 367.) 

" This would make nine hundred and thirty-three years to 
Nahor, the grandfather of Abraham " (i.e., 464 -f- 239 -j- 230 = 933 
years). (Vol. iii. p. 369.) 

Sober criticism on the above would be entirely out of 
place. We venture to affirm that there is not within the 
whole compass of literature another such perversion of 
an evidently plain historical narrative into a monstrous 
historico-chronologico-geographical jumble. 

" Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of 
waters was upon the earth." (Gen. vii. 6.) This six hun- 
dred years is " the Chaldaic equation between the lunar 
and solar years." " And Noah lived after the flood three 
hnndred ^nd fifty years." This is " half of another equa- 
tion, with* a surplus of fifty years." Only fifty more! 
"Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah ; 
and Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred 
and three years, and begat sons and daughters." (Gen. xi. 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 



343 



12, 13.) This four hundred and thirty-eight years repre- 
sents " the duration of the Semitic settlement in Arapa- 
kithis, the mountainous district above Assyria, prior to 
the memory of man." And the sacred writer probably, 
" in order to assist his chronology, added at random the 
thirty-five years when the first son was born." (!) " And 
Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber ; and Salah lived, 
after he begat Eber, four hundred and three years, and 
begat sons and daughters." (Gen. xi. 14, 15.) Salah 
means " the mission." " The four hundred and thirty- 
three years represent the commencement of the journey 
toward the plains, three years before the close of this 
migration." " Heber" means " the settler over the river" 
(Tigris) ; and " represents the period when the migrat- 
ing race passed over the Upper Tigris on their way to 
Upper Mesopotamia. The year 464 would, in that case, 
be the one in which they entered Mesopotamia proper, 
and the tribe must have remained in a compact body two 
hundred and thirty-nine years before a portion of them 
commenced the great migration southward, which was 
the foundation of the primeval kingdom of Southern 
Asia." And so of the other names and numbers. But 
Bunscn has not told us what was meant, on his theory, by 
the frequently recurring phrase, " and he begat sons and 
daughters." This he was certainly bound to do. It is 
true that in the case of the two sons of Heber, 'Peleg and 
Yoktan, he makes the foilner mean " derivation," " divis- 
ion, two hundred and thirty-nine years," and the latter the 
real " father of thirteen South Arabian races ; " which 
distinction appears to have been made on some principle 



344 APPENDIX, A. 

of philosophy peculiar to him ; but he ought not to have 
left unexplained so important a phrase so frequently 
occurring as " sons and daughters." 

We must devote a little space to our author's chro- 
nology of Abraham and the two or three succeeding gen- 
erations. For in this his " philosophy " appears to pecu- 
liar advantage. After giving the well-known numbers, 
as in the following table, — 

Abraham lived 175 years, Isaac, 180 years, 

Jacob, 147 years, Joseph, no years, 

Butisen proceeds to say, — 

" Here it is not a question of a solitary exception in the case of 
one individual. It is true that no instance can be adduced 
demonstrably of any one reaching the age of one hundred and 
eighty. Such a case, however, as an exception, would not con- 
travene the laws of nature. But that three patriarchs should 
have lived, one after the other, one hundred and fifty years, and 
even more, and the viceroy, Joseph, their successor, one hundred 
and ten, cannot be historical. There must be some means of 
detecting some blunder here, or else the historical nature of the 
narrative will be liable to grave suspicion. None but those who 
cling to the infatuation that the antediluvian patriarchs, as well 
as Noah and Shem, lived from six hundred to one thousand 
years, have any excuse to offer for such purely childish delu- 
sions, persistence in which can only be productive of doubt and 
unbelief. 

" But there is no country in which it is so improbable that a 
man a hundred years old should have a son as in a land of early 
development, like Syria and Canaan.* But are we compelled, 

* Our author's "philosophy" likewise sets aside the plain 
declarations of the New Testament. What becomes, on his 
theory, of Rom. iv. 19 and Heb. xi. 11, which indorse the 
account in Gen. xviii. 10-15 and xxi. 5? 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 345 

on that account, to regard these four ages of the patriarchs as 
primitive inventions? No one who admits the strictly historical 
character of the principal branch of the family narrative of this 
period will come to this conclusion.".* (Vol. iii. pp. 340, 341.) 

" But, then, this family possessed an era, as was always the case 
with noble Semitic races; this era must have been that of the 
.immigration." f {Ibtd.^ 

"In the history of Abraham we find two predominant num- 
bers, the seventy-fifth year (that of the immigration), and the 
one hundredth (the birth of Isaac). In this interval, so many 
events occurred, also, as to require a considerably long sojourn 
in Canaan prior to his birth. 

" We assume, therefore, seventy-five as the year before the 
birth of Isaac, twenty-five as the duration of the sojourn in 
Canaan, and, consequently, fifty-one as the first year of the set- 
tlement in Canaan. 

'' But there is also a place for the one hundredth year (which is 
said to be that of the birth of Isaac), as the year in which Abra- 
ham died. This, again, can not be accidental. The computation 
backward — the turning-point is so historically important and 
well established — leads directly to the same conclusion. Ac- 
cording to this, Jacob died in the one hundred and forty-seventh 
year, not of his own life, but of the era from the immigration of 
Abraham. Joseph again, not of his own age, but of the era of 
Jacob." (Vol. iii. p. 344.) 

" The reader will here find an account takeji of every date 
which occurs in the Scripture narrative-X Whatever is deter- 
mined upon grounds of internal probability, such as the births 
of Isaac and Jacob, is placed in brackets. There can not, there- 
fore, be an error of more than two or three years at most.§ 

* Our author distinctly admits that Abraham is strictly an his- 
torical person, as well as Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. 

t Mere assumption. + The Italics are ours. 

§ Referring to a table which is not copied, the essential part 
appearing in what follows. 



34^ APPENDIX, A. 

Those which are placed in parentheses are such as arise out of 
the entries in the Bible in reference to j^ears of marriage. These 
are, consequently, in themselves thoroughly authentic. All the 
other dates are taken directly from the Bible." * 

Truly, this is taking the subject of chronology " out of 
the domain of chronology and history into that of pure 
philosophy.'^ (Vol. iv. p. 22.) An account is taken of 
every date in the Scripture narrative ! Only the date of 
the son's birth is changed to that of the death of the 
father, the real date of this latter event being ignored 
altogether. Is any language, proper for a Christian to 
use, too severe in reprehension of such a procedure .f* 
What ! we involuntarily exclaim, v^as the man insane ? 
Had he become imbecile ? Had he so long been groping 
amid the sepulchral monuments of antiquity that he could 
ttot recognize, in the clear light of day which other men 
use, a plain historical fact.^* 

" And Abraham was an hundred years old when Isaac 
was born" (Gen. xxi. 5)-; that is, as our author interprets 
it, " he was a hundred years old when he died." " And 
Abraham was seventy-five years old when he departed 
out of Haran " (Gen. xii. 4) ; that is, " the seventy-fifth 
year is the year before Isaac was born." And so of other 
dates and events in connection with the Scripture narra- 
tive. " An account is taken of every date in the Scripture 
narrat^ye." He might as well have taken the alphabetical 
letters and figures in the first fifteen chapters of Genesis, 
and so transposed and arranged them as to make out a 
story of the creation about 20,000 B. C, and of the flood 

* Egypt's Place in Universal History, vol. iii. p. 344. 



CHRONOLOGY OF BUNSEN. 347 

occurring 10,000 B. C, and the "development" and 
" strata " of languages, &c., according to his system, and 
' then have claimed the Bible as authority, telling us w^e 
should find " an account taken of every letter and figure 
in the Scripture narrative. If any x's or z's, or other let- 
ters, or any figures, had remained unappropriated, he 
could have found a " place " for them. We say, had he 
done this, the process would have been about as rational 
as that which he has adopted in relation to the history of 
Abraham and his successors in the patriarchal line. 

Bunsen lays great stress on the improbability of a man 
having a son at the age of a hundred years, especially in 
such a land as Palestine, this improbability being even a 
corner-stone in his argument. With him, in his " philos- 
ophy," the assertion of the sacred writer that the event is 
miraculous, and the indorsement of the miracle by an 
inspired apostle (Rom. iv. 19, and Heb. xi. 11), go for 
nothing. Thus the New Testament suffers alike with the 
Old under this rationalizing process. 

When we first read the following caustic criticism on 
Bunsen's work, we thought it probably a little extrava- 
gant. But we are now prepared to receive it as just. 

^' Sesostris is the great name of Egyptian antiquity. Even the 
builders of the Pyramids and of the Labyrinth shrink into insig- 
nificance by the side of this mighty conqueror. Nevertheless, 
his historical identity is not proof against the dissolving and 
recompounding process of the Egyptological method. Bunsen 
distributes him into portions, and identifies each portion with a 
dilTerent king. Sesostris, as we have stated, stands in Mane- 
tho's list as third king of the twelfth dynasty, at 3320 B. C., and 
a notice is appended to his name, clearly identifying him with 



348 APPENDIX, B. 

the Sesostris of Herodotus. Bunsen first takes a portion of him, 
and identifies it with Tosorthrus (written Sesorthrus by Euse- 
bius), the second king of the third dynasty, whose date is 31 19 
B. C, being a difference in the dates of seventeen hundred and 
ninety-nine years — about the same interval as between Augus- 
tus Csesar and Napoleon. He then takes another portion, and 
identifies it with Sesonchosis, a king of the twelfth dynasty; a 
third portion of Sesostris is finally assigned to himself. It 
seems that these three fragments make up the entire Sesostris." * 



B. Page 27. 

CHRONOLOGY OF BOECKH. 

BoECKH makes the duration of the reign of the gods 
to be seventeen Sothic cycles, beginning July 20, B. C. 
30,522, and reaching to July 20, B. C. 5703. The gov- 
erning principle in his system seems to be the aforesaid 
cycle, and the distinguished author did not hesitate to 
make alterations in numbers in order to apply it. His 
scheme is confessedly artificial. Thus Bunsen says, " We 
believe that no Egyptologer has ever ventured upon so 
many and such bold alterations in the dates of Manetho 
as Boeckh was obliged to propose, in order to make good 
his assumption that Manetho's chronology was an artifi- 
cial system of applying cyclical numbers to Egyptian his- 
tory. There is every reason to suppose that the. illustrious 
master of Hellenic archaeology long ago abandoned a 

* Sir G. C. Lewis's Survey of the Astronomy of the Ancients, 
p. 369. 



CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. 349 

theory so triumphantly refuted by the most stubborn facts 
of contemporary evidence. On the other hand, it is to 
be hoped that Egyptologers will not hesitate to admit the 
instinct of genius which led him to assume a certain 
connection between Manetho and the Sothic cycles, inas- 
much as his three books of Egyptian history were divided 
according to that cycle of 1460 years." (Vol. v. p. 119.) 
The first part of this criticism appears emiently just. 
We doubt, however, if the " instinet of genius" ever led 
any one'" to assume" anything in chronology or history. 



C Page 29. 

CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. 

RoDiER places his highest date in human history at 
about B. C. 24,000. This, however, is not the beginning 
of history ; for before this, at undefined dates, he makes 
to have taken place the " dissemination of the Proto- 
Scyths," and the movement of the Japetite or Indo-Eu- 
ropean races toward Western Asia and Europe. But 
about B. C. 24,000, he says, took place " the breaking up 
of the ice at the north pole. The shock which this gave 
to the crust of the earth .was perhaps the cause of the sud- 
den cold which drove the Japetite Aryans from primitive 
Asia." Intermediate between B. C. 24,000 and 21,778 
was the commencement of the period Phta in Egypt, and 
the outlirfe of Egyptian civilization. At B. C. 21,778 was 
the commencement of the period of Phre. At B. C. 19,564 



350 APPENDIX, C. 

was the commencement of the period of Osiris, and his 
conquests in Ethiopia and Asia. AtB. C. 19,337 was the 
commencement of the period of the " Manouantaras " in 
India, a " date chronologically precise and approxima- 
tively verified by astronomy." At B* C. 14,611 was the 
'• era of Ma. Chronologically the number is 14,606 ; 
astronomical verifications, very precise, give 14,611." 
And here the author places the " origin of the great 
cycles of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, and of 
the vague year of three hundred and sixty-five days." At 
B. C. 13,901 he places the " era of the Maha-Yuga, the 
origin of the period called Satya-Yuga, the Institutes of 
Manu, or legislator Vaivasvata, surnamed Satyavrata, 
the end of the Vedic epoch, the recension of the Vedas. 
. . . The exactness of this date is as rigorous as that 
of the Egyptian date." Omitting the mention of some 
intermediate dates, at which important historical events 
are represented to have taken place, we come down to 
B. C. 9101, a date, which is "rigorously verified," at 
which " Maya compiled the treatise of astronomy called 
the Surya Siddhanta." At B. C. 42S6 is another " date 
rigorously verified by astronomy," as that when the 
Egyptian calendar was reformed, &c., &c. These speci- 
fications are sufficient to place before the reader the 
character and pretensions of this remarkable work. 

Now, the question arises. How does this author make 
out these high dates, some of which, he affirms, are veri- 
fied approximatively, and others rigorously, by astron- 
omy ? I need only to indicate his processes in tv/o or 
three instances. Take first the date B. C. 9101, which he 



CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. 35 1 

says is " rigorously verified," when the astronomical 
treatise called the Surya Siddhanta was compiled. Hav- 
ing translated that work from the Sanskrit, while in 
India, I am pretty well acquainted with it, and with the 
astronomical literature of the Hindus ; and I may state 
that the treatise itself contains astronomical data which 
refer the compilation of the work, in its present form, to 
the latter part of the fifth or the first part of the sixth cen- 
tury after Christ, though it doubtless comprises astronom- 
ical knowledge which had existed among the Hindus for 
centuries before. These are the facts as recognized by 
all oriental scholars who have given attention to this 
subject. 

Now, how does our author make out the date of B. C. 
9101 ? In this wise : In the commencement of the trea- 
tise, it is said it was revealed by the Sun to the Asura 
Maya, at the close of the Krita or Satya-Yuga (or age) 
of the present Maha-Yuga, which consists of four million 
three hundred and twenty thousand solar years. But 
these are equal to twelve thousand divine years, or years 
of the gods — one year of the gods being equal to three 
hundred and sixty years of mortals, i. e., solar years. 
This is expressly stated in the work itself. Now, our 
author, setting aside or ignoring the express declarations 
of the treatise, and of other astronomical treatises, makes 
the Maha-Yuga to consist of twelve thousand sidereal 
years, instead of four million three hundred and twenty 
thousand ; and this would bring the end of the Krita- 
Yuga at B. C. 9ioi,when the Surya Siddhanta was com- 
piled. The declaration in the treatise itself makes the 



352 APPENDIX, C. 

compilation, or rather revelation of it, to have been at 
about B. C. 2,163,101. Rodier thinks this a mistake, 
and, arbitrarily altering the date, makes it to be B. C. 
9101, which he says " is rigorously verified," while the 
treatise itself furnishes unequivocal evidence that its com- 
pilation, in its present form, can be dated no earlier than 
the sixth century before Christ. Rodier might, with 
equal consistency, have made the epoch of the compila- 
tion of the Surya Siddhanta to have been 2,163,101, instead 
of 9101, B. C. 

Take another of his dates, " rigorously verified," that 
of B. C. 13,901, the epoch of the Institutions of Manu, 
end of the Vedic epoch, the date of the recensions of the 
Vedas, of the adoption of the Egyptian Zodiac, &c., &c. 
How does he make this out? Very easily, in this way : 
There is appended to the Vedas an astronomical part 
called the lyotisha; in this the position of the W5^2//<a;/ 
colure is given for the time, which a simple calculation 
shows to have been B. C. 1181 (Rodier says 1500). The 
original Sanskrit text, in defining the position, mentions 
the summer solstice as being at the particular point at 
that time, or what is equivalent to it. Now, Rodier has 
the boldiiess^ as he terms it, to suppose that it is not the 
summer solstice that is meant, but the winter ; and this 
carries back the epoch of the observation a space of time 
equal to that in which the equinoxes would retrograde 
through one half the whole circle of the ecliptic, i. e., 
about twelve thousand nine hundred and sixty years.* 
This, added to the Vedic date, as admitted by Sanskrit 
scholars generally, viz., 1181, makes out Rodier's epoch 

* Rodier, p. 470. 



CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. 353 

of B. C. 13,901. (He has mistaken some of his num- 
bers.) He arbitrarily alters a fact — a fact which all 
oriental scholars recognize as such ; i. e., puts the win- 
ter solstice for the summer solstice, thus making a clear 
difference of more than twelve thousand nine hundred 
years, and then declares the result a " rigorous astronomi- 
cal verification." Was ever audacity, in a professedly 
scientific writer, surpassed by this? 

Take another of his dates, " the era of Ma," of which 
he says, " Very precise astronomical verifications give 
rigorously B. C. 14,611, the date of the origin of the great 
cycles of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, and of 
the vague year of three hundred and sixty-five days, 
the invention of the zodiac, &c., the institution of the 
monarchical regime." 

Now, how does he make this out? Why, he takes 
the highest numbers he can find, that are used in giving 
the duration of the Egyptian empire from Menes to 
Alexander, and then extends them somewhat, so that he 
makes the era of Menes at least one hundred and fifty 
years earlier than any other writer, and a number of hun- 
dreds of years earlier than the numbers necessitate, even 
if we reckon the thirty dynasties consecutive, and about 
two thousand years earlier than Lepsius and Bunsen, and 
more than three thousand years earlier than Poole, and 
others ; i. e., he places Menes, the first mortal king of 
Egypt, at B. C. 5853. He then, from this, mounts up 
into antiquity on the mythological numbers furnished by 
Manetho, as interpreted by Eusebius, and corrected by 
the Turin Papyrus, according to his fancy ; i. e., previous 
23 



354 APPENDIX, C. 

to Menes, he makes the kingdom of the Nekuas — 
usually interpreted Manes^ or spirits of dead men (he 
has another interpretation, which I do not comprehend) 
— of five thousand six hundred and thirteen years, and 
then the period of Ma, purely mythological, of thirty-one 
hundred and forty years : this brings us to the epoch, 
the '' commencement of the period of Ma, B. C. 14,606." 
This is historical, and the date is verified by astronomy ! 

His process is short and easy. He says Claudius Ptol- 
emy, the great Grecian astronomer, employed, in his 
tables, a cycle c^f fourteen hundred and seventy-five years. 
Then, starting at the year A. D. 139, — the end of the 
Sothic period of fourteen hundred and sixty years, which 
terminated next after the Christian era, — he reckons 
back by periods of fourteen hundred and seventy-five 
years — ten such steps bringing him to B. C. 14,611 ; 
and as this date differs only five years from 14,606, to 
which he had arrived historically, the difference of jive 
years, as he says, being easily accounted for by the loss 
of fractions of years in the reckoning of Manetho. And 
this he calls demonstrating the " precision" of the date 
B. C. 14,611 by astronomy. 

In order to put this matter in its true light, it is 
scarcely necessary to remark, that there is hardly a 
datum involved which is reliable. Take the historical 
part. It is true that a Sothic period, according to 
Censorinus, terminated A. D. 139. But the Sothic 
cycle was a period of fourteen hundred and sixty * 

* i. e., fourteen hundred and sixty solar years, and fourteen 
hundred and sixtj-one Egyptian or vague years. 



CHRONOLOGY OF RODIER. 355 

years ; and on what authority does the writer make 
this the starting-point for a reckoning with another 
cycle of fourteen hundred and seventy-five years, if 
there be such a cycle? And then, again, what becomes 
of his reckoning, when it is regarded as demonstrable, 
that the thirty dynasties of Manetho were not all con- 
secutive — that part of them were contemporaneous? 
by which fact the duration of the Egyptian empire, 
from Menes to Alexander, is curtailed from two to three 
thousand years. He had the works of Bunsen, Lep- 
sius, Poole, and Wilkinson, etc., before him, — or ought 
to have had, — in which the various versions of Manetho 
are given ; but, as far as I am aware, he has not even 
hinted that different results had been arrived at by those 
scholars and others. Whereas, in point of fact, there 
are equally authentic numbers, both historical and 
mythological, which, if employed, would have varied 
that date several hundreds, or even thousands, of years ; 
so that, instead of a coincidence between the historical 
and astronomical numbers within the limits oi Jive years ^ 
there might have been made a discrepancy of some two 
or three thousand. But the point of his argument all 
turns on this coincidence within jive years. 

But the astronomy of Rodier is worse than his his- 
tory. He says that Claudius Ptolemy made use, in his 
tables, of a cycle of fourteen hundred and seventy-five 
years, referring to Syncellus (p. 53) for authority. But his 
authority does not sustain the assertion. Ptolemy made 
use of no such cycle ; at least, the passage referred to 
does not prove that he did. But supposing he did, how 



356 APPENDIX, C. 

does that authorize him (Rodier) to take that number, 
and by it ascend into antiquity, and verify a date fifteen 
thousand years before ? Even if the number were legit- 
imate or true, it could not be available for such a use. 
Such an application of it is unscientific and absurd. 
The absurdity may be well illustrated by a reference to 
the Julian period. The Julian period is formed by 
multiplying together the numbers of the solar cycle, 
lunar cycle, and cycle of indiction, i. e., 28 X 19 X i5« 
The product of these numbers is 7980. This period began 
B. C. 4713 ; i. e., the commencements of these three cycles 
coincide that year, as is found by reckoning backward 
from any point of time when the cycles were iause in the 
Roman empire. Now, supposing any one should at- 
tempt to maintain from this that the Roman state was 
in being, and the particular civil matters connected 
with the cycle of indiction were in vogue, B. C. 4713, 
his argument would be parallel to that of our French 
savant in the premises before us. I ask, in all soberness, 
is any language of denunciation too severe properly to 
characterize such a work.? If there is in the whole 
compass of scientific literature a more inconclusive argu- 
ment, a more irrational or uncritical process, than that 
of our author in his astronomical verification, as he 
terms it, of the date B. C. 14,611, it has not come 
under my notice. 

Others of Rodier's dates, of a high antiquity, are 
open to the same criticism that I have bestowed on the 
few above mentioned. 



MANETHO. 357 

13. Page 68. 

MANETHO. 

The following is the account of Manetho, as given by 
Syncellus : — 

"It remains, therefore, to make certain extracts concerning the 
dynasties of the Egyptians from the writings of Manetho the 
Sebennyte, the high priest of the idolatrous temples of Egypt in 
the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus. These, according to his own 
account, he copied from the inscriptions which were engraved in 
the sacred dialect and hieroglyphic ciiaracters upon the columns 
set up in'the Seriadic land by Thoth, the first Hermes ; and, after 
the deluge, translated from the sacred dialect, into the Greek 
tongue, in hieroglyphic characters; and committed to writing in 
books, and deposited by Agathodsemon, the son of the second 
Hermes, the father of TAt, in the penetralia of the temples of 
Egypt. He has addressed and explained them to Philadelphus, 
the second king Ptolemy, in the book entitled Sothis, as fol- 
lows : — 

" '^T/ie Epistle of Manetho^ the Sebennyte, to Ptolejny Philadel- 
phus. To the great and august king Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
Manetho, the high priest and scribe of the sacred adyta, being 
by birth a Sebennyte, and citizen of Heliopolis, to his sovereign, 
Ptolemy, greeting: — 

" ' It is right for us, most mighty king, to pay due attention to 
all things which it is your pleasure we should take into con- 
sideration. In answer, therefore, to your inquiries concerning 
the things that shall take place in the world, I shall, according 
to your commands, lay before you wjiat I have gathered from the 
sacred books written by Hermes Trismegistus, our forefather. 
Farewell, my prince and sovereign.' " * 

* Syncellus, Chron. p. 40. 



358 APPENDIX, D. 

Syncellus then, after the letter, thus proceeds : — 

" He says these things respecting the interpretation of the 
books of the second Hermes ; he afterwards gives a narrative con- 
cerning the five Egyptian nations, called with them gods, demi- 
gods, manes, and mortals, of whom Eusebius, alluding to them 
in his chronological writings, thus speaks : 'The Egyptians have 
strung together many trifling legends respecting gods and demi- 
gods, and with them manes (nxvcov), and other mortal kings. 
For the most ancient among them reckoned by lunar years of 
thirty days each, but those who came after called the Aoras 
(oiQovg), periods of three months, years.'" 

It should be remarked that this letter to Ptolemy Phila- 
delphus (with the work spoken of by Syncellus, Bi^kog t^j 
i:d)ds(j}g) is pronounced by many* a forgery executed by 
some Jewish or Christian writer subsequent to the Chris- 
tian era. This opinion, however, or charge of forgery, I 
can not think to be well sustained. 

* Kenrick (Anc. Eg., vol. ii. p. 72) says the Book of Sothis 
" is proved to be spurious by the epithet Se(iaar6?, which the in- 
troductory epistle gives to Ptolemy, the translation of Augustus,, 
and never found among the titles of the Ptolemies." And the 
writer of the article Manetko, in Smith's Dictionary, is equally 
positive that the letter and Book of Sotki's are forgeries ; and he 
mentions the occurrence of the epithet Sebastos as the principal 
reason for regarding them as the work o^ & pseudo Manetho. 

Though the epithet may not have been used as an official title 
given to, or assumed by, the Ptolemies, may it not have been 
applied occasionally to those sovereigns, e. g., Philadelphus.? I 
have not yet seen satisfactory evidence that the letter above 
quoted and the Book of Sothis, spoken of by Syncellus, were not 
from the pen of the true Manetho, the great Egyptian historian. 



359 



E. Page 69. 
MANETHO'S LISTS, 

AS GIVEN BY AFRICANUS AND EUSEBIUS. 

The version of Africanus is reported to us by Syncellus 
(Chron. pp. iS, 19) under this heading: ''^Africanus 
respecting the Mythological Chronology of the Egyp- 
tians and Chaldeans,'' We regard the passage, there- 
fore, as a quotation from Africanus, though RawHnson 
(Herod, vol. ii. p. 69) thinks it is from Manetho. The 
point, however, is not important. 

"Manetho, tfie Sebennjte, priest of the impure sacred rites in 
Egypt, who lived after Berosus, in the time of Ptolemy Philadel- 
phus, like Berosus weaving lies, wrote to this same Ptolemy 
respecting the six* dynasties (that is, of the seven gods who 
never existed), who, he says, reigned through a period of 11,985 
years. The first of these, the god Hephaistos, reigned 9000 
years. But these 9000 years some of our historians (regarding 
them as so many lunar months, and dividing the whole number 
of days in them by 365, the number of days in a solar year) re- 
duce to 727I years, thinking they have made a wonderful correc- 
tion, whereas they have rather confounded truth with error in a 
manner that is ridiculous." 

* So in the original, though there is reason to think that the 
language as written was sixteen^ viz., seven gods and nine demi- 
gods. The passage, as it stands, does not make sense, and is 
evidently corrupted. 



360 APPENDIX, E. 

"THE FIRST DYNASTY. 

1. HephaistOS (Vulcan) reigned over the Solar Years. Lunar Years. 

Egyptians, . . . . . 727I gcxxD 

2. Helios, son of Hephaistos, , . 8oi- 992 

3. Agathodaimon, . . . . . S^tV 7°*^ 

4. Kronos, 40^ 501 

5. Osiris and Isis, . . , , . 35 433 

6. Tjphon, 29 359 

Sum, . . . . . . 969 11985 

Quarters of Years. 

7. Horus, demigod, . . . . . 25 100 

8. Ares, ........ 23 92 

9. Anubis, 17 68 

10. Heracles, 15 60 

11. Apollo, ...... 25 ^ 100 

12. Ammon, . . . . . . 30 220 

13. Tithoes, 27 108 

14. Sosos, ...... 32 128 

15. Zeus, . . . . . .' . 20 80 

Deficiency, .... ^ 2 

Sum, 214^ 858" 

That is, the gods reigned 11985 years = 969 solar years. 
The demigods, . . 858 " = 214^ " 

Totals, . . . 12843 "83^ 

The year of the gods is lunar = i month; and the year of the 
demigods is trimestre, and called dlQog, four of which make one 
solar year. 

In this table the names with the numbering, and the du- 
ration of the reigns in solar years, are as found in Syncel- 
lus ; in the second column, or that of luciar years (months), 
only the 9000 of the first god-king are given by Syncellus, 



MANETHO'S LISTS. 361 

with the statement that they equal 727^ solar years, and 
that the whole duration of the reigns of the gods was 1 1 ,985 
lunar years (months) ; that is, lunar periods of 30 days 
each, according to the early Christian chronographers. 
But Syncellus (p. 41) gives additional statements, ap- 
parently on the authority of Panodorus, that the 11,985 
month-years of the gods are equal to 969 solar years, and 
that the duration of the reigns of the " two dynasties of 
nine demigods " was 214^ solar years, deduced from 858 
&Q01- or TQoncbv^ i. e., tri-monthly periods, the whole amount- 
ing to 1 183 J- solar years. These critical points and 
computations would not deserve the prominent notice we 
have given them but for the fact that the result, 1183J 
solar years, is an important number with the early chronog- 
raphers, since by adding it to another number, viz., 1058, 
the number of years from the creation of Adam to the 
commencement of the reign of the gods, according to their 
computation {Sync. Chron. p. 41, c), they make out the 
sum of 2242 years, the length of the period from the 
creation to the flood, according to the Septuagint. And 
this result we regard as worthy of notice. 

The ante-historic reigns in Egypt are given by Eusebius, 
in his Chronology, lib. I, chap. xx. i. The chapter is 
headed, " Ex y^gyptiacis Manethonis monumentis, qui 
in tres libros historian! suam tribuit. De diis, et de heroi- 
bus, de manibus et de mortalibus regibus qui in yEgypto 
praefuerunt usque ad regem Persarum Darium."- 

"The first god of the Egyptians was Vulcan, who is celebrated 
as the inventor of fire. After him was Sol, then Agathoda^mon, 
then Saturn, then Osiris, then Typhon, brother of Osiris, and 



362 APPENDIX, E. 

lastly Horus, son of Osiris and Isis ; these first ruled over the 
Egyptians. Afterwards, the royal authority continued in regular 
succession to Bytis, through a period of 13,900 years. But I un- 
derstand the year to be lunar, consisting of thirty days ; for what 
we call a month the Egyptians formerly indicated by the name 
of year. 

Years. 
After the gods, heroes reigned, .... 1255 
Then other kings, ..... 1817 

Then other 30 Memphite kings, . . . . 1790 

Then other 10 Thinite kings, . . . . 350 

Then followed the rule of manes and heroes, . . 5813 

The whole sum amounts to 11,000, (really) ii>025 

years, which are lunar, that is, monthly. But, in truth, the rule of 
gods, heroes, and manes, which the Egyptians narrate, is sup- 
posed to be a period of 24,900 luaar years, which make only 2206 
solar years." 

Eusebius then, after some remarks to the import that 
Mizraim of the Holy Scriptures was the founder of the 
Egyptian race, and that the foregoing chronology can be 
made to harmonize essentially with that of the Hebrew 
Scriptures by regarding the year as equal to a lunar 
month,* proceeds to give, in detail, the thirty dynasties. 

* . . . plane sequum est, ut hi anmin menses convertantur 
quot ab Hebrzeis memorati anni ; nempe ut qui menses conti- 
nentur in memoratis apud Hebraeos annis, ii totidem intelli- 
gantur ^gyptiorum lunares anni, pro ea temporum summa quae 
a primo condito homine ad Mezraim usque colligitur. Etenim 
Mezraimus yEgyptiaci auctor fuit ab eaque prima yEgyptiorum 
dynastia credenda est. Quod si temporum copia adhuc exuberet, 
reputandum sedulo est plures fortasse yEgyptiorum reges una 
eademque aetate exstitisse : namque Thinitas regnavisse aiunt et 
Memphitas et Saitas et ^Ethiopes eodemque tempore alios. Vi- 
dentur prseterea alii quoque alibi imperium tenuisse, etc. . . — 
Z,at, transl. of the Armenian, ctc.^ B. I ch. xx. 3. 



MANETHO'S LISTS. 



363 



THE THIRTY DYNASTIES. 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

DYNASTY I. 
After the manes and demi- 
gods, the first dynasty is reck- 
oned of eight kings, of whom 
the first was Menes, who reigned 
62 years. He was destroyed by 
a hippopotamus. 

2. Athothis, his son, 57 years. 
He established the kingdom in 
Memphis. He is said to have 
been the author of books on 
anatomy, for he was a physi- 
cian. 

3. Kenkenes, his son, 31 
years. 

4. Venephes, his son, 23 
years. In his time a famine 
afflicted Egypt. He built the 
Pyramids, near Kochome. 

5. Usaphaidus, his son, 20 
years. 

6. Miebeg, his son, 26 years. 

7. Semempses, his son, 18 
years. In his time a great pes- 
tilence afflicted Egypt. 

8. Bieneches, his son, 26 years. 
In all 253 (263) years. 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

DYNASTY I. 

After the manes and heroes, 
they reckon the first dynasty of 
eight kings; of whom the first 
was Menes, remarkable for his 
glorious administration. Com- 
mencing from him, we carefully 
record the families reigning in 
succession, of which the series 
is as follows : — 

1. Menes, the Thinite, and his 
seven successors, whom Herod- 
otus calls Mina. He reigned 30 
(60) years. He went, with his 
army, beyond the limits of his 
own country; became illustrious 
for his exploits. He was de- 
stroyed by a hippopotamus. 

2. Athothis, his son, enjoyed 
the regal power 27 years. He 
cultivated the art of medicine, 
and wrote books on surgery. 

3. Cencenes, his son, 39 years. 

4. Vanenephis, 42 years.' In 
his time a famine afflicted the 
land. He erected the pyramid 
near Kochome. 



364 APPENDIX, E. 

ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 



DYNASTY II. 

OF NINE THINITE KINGS. 

1. Boethos, 38 years. In his 
time a chasm opened in the 
earth, in Bubastus, and many 
perished. 

2. Kseachos, 39 years. In his 
time the bulls Apis, in Mem- 
phis, Mnevis, in Heliopolis, and 
the Mendesian goat, were de- 
clared to be gods. 

3. Binothris, 47 years. In his 
time it was decreed that women 
might exercise regal power. 

4. Tlas, 17 years. 

5. Sethenes, 44 years. 

6. Choeres, 17 years. 

7. Nephercheres, 25 years. 
In his time the Nile is fabled to 
have flowed, mingled with hon- 
ey, for eleven days. 

[Both Routh (Rel. Soc. vol. 
ii. p. 248) and Cory (Anc. 
Frag. p. 98) add the 8th and 
9th kings, according to Euse- 
bius, or as Eusebius has them, 
but they are not in the text. 
These writers likewise give the 
sum of the years of this dy- 
nasty as 302 years.] 



DYNASTY II. 

OF NINE KINGS. 

1. Bochus.* In his time^ a 
great chasm opened in the earth 
at Bubastus, and many persons 
perished. 

2. After him Cechous; in 
which time Apis, and Mnevis, 
and the Mendesian goat are re- 
garded as gods. 

3. Then Biophis, under whom 
it was enacted by law that wo- 
men might exercise regal power. 

4. ,5, 6. Then three others, in 
whose time no wonderful acts 
were performed. 

7. Under the seventh, the fab- 
ulists say the Nile flowed with 
honey and water for 11 days. 

8. Afterward Sesochris, 48 
years, whose height, they say, 
was five cubits and three hand- 
breadths. 

9. Under the ninth, nothing 
worthy of mention occurred. 

These reigned 297 years. 



* In the orthography of the names I follow the Latin of the 
Armenian version of Eusebius. 



MANETHO'S LISTS. 365 

ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. ACCORDING TO EtTSEBIUS. 



DYNASTY III. 

NINE MEMPHITE KINGS. 

1. Necherophes, 28 years. In 
his time the Libyans revolted 
from the Egyptians, but through 
fear, on account of an unnatural 
increase of the moon, they gave 
themselves up. 

2. Tosorthrus, 29 years. He 
is called Asklepius by the Egyp- 
tians on account of his medical 
knowledge. He invented house- 
building with hewn stones, and 
patronized literature. 

3. Tyris, 7 years. 

4. Mesochris, 17 years. 

5. Soyphis, 16 years. 

6. Tosertasis, 19 years. 

7. Aches, 42 years. 

8. Sephuris, 30 years. 

9. Kerpheres, 26 years. 

In all 214 years. Altogether, 
of the three dynasties, accord- 
ing to Africanus, 769 (779). 

DYNASTY IV. 

OF EIGHT MEMPHITE KINGS OF 
A DIFFERENT RACE. 

1. Soris, 29 years. 

2. Suphis, 63 years. He built 
the largest pyramid, which He- 
rodotus says was constructed by 
Cheops. He was haughty to- 
wards the gods, and wrote a sa- 
cred book, which the Egyptians 



DYNASTY III. 

OF EIGHT MEMPHITE KINGS. 

Necherochis, in whose time 
the Libyans revolted from the 
Egyptians; but on account of a 
sudden and immense increase 
in the size of the moon, they re- 
turned to their allegiance. 

Then Sesorthus, who, on ac- 
count of his knowledge in med- 
icine, was called -^sculapius by 
the Egyptians. He was the in- 
ventor of building houses with 
hewn stone, and gave much at- 
tention to writing. 

The six remaining kings per- 
formed nothing worthy of men- 
tion. 

These reigned 197 years. 



DYNASTY IV. 

OF SEVENTEEN MEMPHITE 

KINGS, FROM ANOTHER ROY- 
AL FAMILY. 

Of whom the third was Su- 
phis, author of \.he greatest 
pyramid, which Herodotus says 
was erected by Cheops, who be- 
came haughty toward the gods ; 
then, becoming penitent, wrote 



366 



APPENDIX, E. 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

regard as a work of great im- 
portance. 

3. Suphis, 66 years. 

4. Mencheres, 63 years. 

5. Rhatoeses, 25 years. 

6. Bicheres, 22 years. 

7. Sebercheres, 7 years. 

8. Thampthis, 9 years. 

In all 274 (284) years. In all 
of the four dynasties after the 
flood, according to Africanus, 
1046 (1063) years. 

DYNASTY V. 

OF EIGHT ELEPHANTINE KINGS. 

1. Usercheres, 28 years. 

2. Sephres, 13 years. 

3. Nephercheres, 20 years. 

4. Sisires, 7 years. 

5. Cheres, 20 years. 

6. Rhathuris, 44 years. 

7. Mencheres, 9 years. 

8. Tancheres, 44 years. 

9. Obnos, 33 years. 

In all 248 (218) years, with 
the 1046 (1063) of the four pre- 
ceding dynasties, 1294 (1281) 
years. 

DYNASTY VI. 

OF SIX MEMPHITE KINGS. 

1. Othoes, 30 years. He was 
killed by his body-guards. 

2. Phius, 53 years. 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

a sacred book, which the Egyp- 
tians regard as a great treasure. 

Respecting the remaining 
kings, nothing worthy of record 
has been related. 

They reigned 448 years. 



DYNASTY V. 

OF THIRTY-ONE ELEPHANTINE 
KINGS. 

Of whom the first, Othius, 
was slain by his body-guards. 

The fourth was Phiops, who, 
from the sixth year of his age, 
exercised the regal power till 
his looth year. 



DYNASTY VI. 

A certain woman named Nit- 
ocris reigned. She was the 
bravest and most beautiful wo- 
man of her time, with rosy 
cheeks (flava rubris genis). It 



MANETHO's LISTS. 



367 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

3. Methusuphis, 7 years. 

4. Phiops, who began to reign 
at the age of 6 years, and reigned 
trill he was a hundred years old. 

5. Menthesuphis, i year. 

6. Nitocris, who was the most 
beautiful woman of her time, of 
florid complexion. She built 
the third pyramid, and reigned 
12 years. 

In all 203 years, which, with 
the 1294 (1281) of the preceding 
5 dynasties, make 1497 (1484). 

DYNASTY VII. 

OF SEVENTY MEMPHITE KINGS, 

who reigned 70 days. 



DYNASTY VIII. 



OF 



TWENTY- SEVEN 
KINGS, 



MEMPHITE 



who reigned 146 years ; with 
those before, 1639 jears for the 
eight dynasties. 

DYNASTY IX. 

OF NINETEEN HERACLEOFOLITE 
KINGS, 

who reigned 409 years. 

The first was Acthoes, who 
was niore cruel than all his pred- 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

is said she erected the third pyr- 
amid, a huge mass like a hill.* 
These reigned 203 years. 



DYNASTY VII. 

OF FIVE MEMPHITE KINGS, 

who reigned 75 years. 

DYNASTY VIII. 

OF NINE MEMPHITE KINGS 

(Greek, 5), who reigned 100 
years. 



DYNASTY IX. 

OF FOUR HERACLEOFOLITE 
KINGS, 

100 years. 

The first of these, Octhois, 
the most cruel of all the kings 



* Armen. (Mignes' ed.), speciemcollis prae se ferens — but as 
given in Cory's Ancient Fragments (p. 107), quae est moles erecta 
collis instar. 



368 



APPENDIX, E. 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

ecessors. He did much injury 
to all the inhabitants of Egypt. 
Being seized with madness, he 
was killed by a crocodile. 

DYNASTY X. 

OF NINETEEN HERACLEOPOLITE 
KINGS, 

who reigned 185 years. 
DYNASTY XI. 

OF SIXTEEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS, 

who reigned 43 years. 

After whom,* Ammenemes 
reigned 16 years. 

Thus far the first book of 
Manetho; in all, 192 (200) 
kings, 2300 (2308) years and 
70 days. 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

who preceded him, filled all 
Egypt with dire calamities. He 
was finally seized with madness, 
and destroyed by a crocodile. 

DYNASTY X. 

OF NINETEEN HERACLEOPOLITE 
KINGS, 

185 years. 

DYNASTY XI. 

OF SIXTEEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS, 

43 years. 

After whom,t Ammenemes, 
16 years. 

Thus far extends the first 
book of Manetho. There are 
J92 kings, and 2300 years. 



The Second Book of Manetho. 



DYNASTY XII. 

OF SEVEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS. 

1. Sessonchosis, son of Am- 
menemes, 46 years. (Syncellus, 
8th.) 

2. Ammenemes, 38 years. 
He was slain by his eunuchs. 
(Syncellus, 9th.) 



DYNASTY XII. 

OF SEVEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS. 

Of whom the first, Sesoncho- 
sis,son of Ammenenes, 46 years. 

Ammenemes, 38 years, who 
was slain by his eunuchs. 

Sesostris, 48 years, who is 
said to have been four cubits 



* ^e6' ovg, which Cory (Anc. Frag. p. 108) translates among 
ivhom. Routh (Jiel- Sac. vol. ii. p. 253) has it, quibus Ammene- 
mes succedit, &c. t Post quos. 



MANETHO'S LISTS. 



369 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

3. Sesostris, 48 years. He 
subdued all Asia in nine years, 
and Europe as far as Thrace. 
He everywhere erected monu- 
ments of his conquests of the 
nations. He erected pillars, 
engraven with male emblems, 
among the people who were 
brave, and with female emblems 
among those who were coward- 
ly. By the Egyptians he is held 
in honor first after Osiris. 

4. Lachares, 8 years. He 
built a labyrinth in Arsenoite, 
as a tomb for himself. 

5. Ammeres, 8 years. 

6. Ammenemes, 8 years. 

7. Skemiophris, his sister, 4 
years. In all, 160 years. 



DYNASTY XIII. 

OF SIXTY DIOSPOLITE KINGS, 

who reigned 453 years. 
DYNASTY XIV. 

OF SEVENTY-SIX XOITE KINGS, 

who reigned 184 years. 
DYNASTY XV. 

SHEPHERDS. 

They were six foreign Phoeni- 
cian kings, who took Memphis. 

The first, Saites, reigned 19 
years; after whom, the Saite 

24 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

three spans and two digits in 
height. He subdued all Asia 
in nine years, and parts of Eu- 
rope as far as Thrace. In all 
the conquered countries he 
erected monuments on which 
he inscribed, among the brave, 
virilia; among the cowardly, 
feminea pudenda ignominige 
causa. Wherefore he is held by 
the Egyptians next in honor af- 
ter Osiris. 

Lampares succeeded, 8 years. 
He constructed the labyrinth in 
Arsinois for his tomb. 

His successors reigned 42 
years. 

The duration of all their 
reigns was 245 years. 

DYNASTY XIII. 

OF SIXTY DIOSPOLITE KINGS, 

who reigned 453 years. 
DYNASTY XIV. 

OF SEVENTY-SIX XOITE KINGS, 

who reigned 484 years. 
DYNASTY XV. 

OF DIOSPOLITAN KINGS, 

who reigned 250 years. 



370 



APPENDIX, E. 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

Nome was named. They found- 
ed a citj in the Sethroite Nome, 
from which, going forth, thej 
conquered Egypt. 

2. Bnon, 44 years. (27 of 
Syncellus). 

3. Pachnan, 61 years. 

4. Staan, 50 years. 

5. Arehles, 49 years. 

6. Aphobis, 61 years. (29 of 
Syncellus). 

In all, 284 years. 

DYNASTY XVI. 

OF THIRTY-TWO OTHER SHEP- 
HERD KINGS, 

who reigned 518 years. 

DYNASTY XVII. 

OF FORTY-THREE OTHER SHEP- 
HERD KINGS, AND FORTY- 
THREE THEBAN DIOSPOLITES. 

Altogether, the Shepherd and 
Theban kings reigned 151 years. 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 



DYNASTY XVI. 

OF FIVE THEBAN KINGS, 

who reigned 190 years. 
DYNASTY XVII. 

OF SHEPHERDS, 

who were Phoenician brothers, 
and foreign kings, who took 
Memphis. Of whom, 

1. Saites reigned 19 years, 
from whom the Saite Nome was 
named. They built, in the Seth- 
roite Nome, a city, from which, 
going forth, they subdued 
Egypt. 

2. Bnon, 40 years. 

3. Arehles, 30 years. 

4. Apophis, 14 years. 

In all, 103 years. [The same 
in the Greek.] It was in the 
time of these kings that Joseph 
was in Egypt. 



MANETHOS LISTS. 



371 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

DYNASTY XVIII. 

OF SIXTEEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS. 

1. Amos, in whose time Mo- 
ses went out of Egypt, as we 
show.* 

2. Chebros, 13 years. 

3. Amenophthis, 24 years. 

4. Amersis, 22 years. 

5. Misaphris, 13 years. 

6. Misphragmuthosis, 26 
years. In his time happened 
the deluge of Deucalion. 

7. Tuthmosis, 9 years. 

8. Amenophis, 31 years. He 
is supposed to be the Memnon, 
the sounding-stone. 

9. Horus, 37 years. 

10. Acherrhes, 32 years. 

11. Rathos, 6 years. 

12. Chebres, 12 years. 

13. Acherrhes, 12 years. 

14. Armeses, 5 years. 

15. Ramesses, i year. 

16. Amenophath, 19 years. 
In all, 263 years. [In reality 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

DYNASTY XVIII. 

OF fourteen! DIOSPOLITE 
KINGS, 

of whom 

1. Amoses,, 45 years. 

2. Chebron, 13 years. 

3. Amophis • (Ammenophis), 
21 years. 

4. Memphres (Miphres), 12 
years. 

5. Mispharmuthosis (Mis- 
phragmuthosis), 26 years. 

6. Tuthmosis, 9 years. 

7. Amenophis, 31 years, who 
is Memnon the speaking (sound- 
ing) stone. 

8. Orus, 28 (38) years. " 

9. Achencheres, 16 years. In 
his days Moses offered himself 
to the Hebrews as a leader, to 
take them out of Egypt.J [This 
is put in the time of the nth 
king in the Greek.] 

10. Acherres, 8 years (Atho- 
ris, 39 years). 



* It is added, apparently by Syncellus, " but by the present 
reckoning, we are compelled to regard Moses at this time as still 
a young man." 

t So in the Greek likewise; but the Greek, in the detail, gives 
16 kings. Josephus has 17 names from Tuthoses (Amoses) to 
Amenophis included, he inserting a female's name in the fourth 
place. 

X Greek, in Syncellus, " led the Hebrews," &c. Syncellus 
says " Eusebius alone says the exodus of Israel took place un- 
der this king, no one agreeing with him, but all before opposing 
him, as he confesses" p. 72, D. 



ZT 



APPENDIX, E. 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

262, without assigning anytime 
to the first king.] 



DYNASTY XIX. 

OF SEVEN DIOSPOLITE KINGS. 

1. Sethos, 51 years. 

2. Rapsakes, 61 years. 

3. Ammenephthes, 20 years. 

4. Ramesses, 60 years. 

5. Ammenenies, 5 years. 

6. Thuoris, who is called, by 
Homer," Polybius, the husband 
of Alcandra, in whose time Troy 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

11. Cherres, 15 years (Chen- 
cheres, 16 years. In his time 
Moses led the Jews out of 
Egypt ) [Acherres and Cherres 
are the 12th and 13th kings in 
the Greek, so that Athoris and 
Chencheres are the two in the 
Greek which are not in the Ar- 
menian.] 

12. Armais, who is Danaus, 5 
years; after which, being driven 
from Egypt, and fleeing from 
his brother Egyptus, he escaped 
into Greece, and, having con- 
quered Argos, ruled over the 
Argives. [Armais is the 14th 
king in the Greek.] 

13. Ramesses, who is Egyp- 
tus, 68 years. (47 Syncellus.) 

14. Amenophis, 40 years. 
[These last two are 15th and 
i6th in the Greek.] 

Sum of the reigns, 348. [Same 
in the Greek, but in reality only 
317 or 327.] 



DYNASTY XIX. 

OF FIVE DIOSPOLITE KINGS. 

1. Sethos, 55 years. 

2. Rampses, .66 years. 

3. Ammenephthis, 40 years. 

4. Ammenemes, 26 years. 

5. Thuoris, called, by Homer, 
Polybius, a bold and brave man, 
in whose time Troy was taken 
[Greek : called by Polybius, by 



MANETHO'S LISTS. 



373 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

was taken, 7 years (Sjncellus, 

49)- 

In all 209 (204) years. 

In this second book of Mane- 
thoare96 kings and 2121 (2216) 
years. 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

Homer, husband of Alcandra, 
in whose time Troy was taken], 
7 years. 

In all, 194 years. 

In this second book of Mane- 
tho are contained 92 kings and 
2121 years. 



The Third Book of Manetho. 



DYNASTY XX. 

OF TWELVE DIOSPOLITE KINGS, 

who reigned 135 years. 
DYNASTY XXI. 

OF SEVEN TANITE KINGS. 

1. Smendes, 26 years. 

2. Psusennes, 41 (46) years. 

3. Nephelcheres, 4 years. 

4. Amenophthis, 9 years. 

5. Osochor, 6 years. 

6. Psinaches, 9 years. 

7. Psusennes, 35 (14) years. 
In all, 130 years. 

DYNASTY XXII. 

OF NINE BUBASTITE KINGS. 

1. Sesonchosis, 21 years. 

2. Osorthon, 15 years. 

•3, 4, 5. Three others, 25 years. 

6. Takelothis, 13 years. 

7, 8, 9. Three others, .42 years. 
In all, 120 (116) years. 



DYNASTY XX. 

OF TWELVE DIOSPOLITE KINGS, 

who reigned 172 (178) years. 
DYNASTY XXI. 

OF SEVEN TANITE KINGS. 

1. Smendis, 26 years. 

2. Psusennes, 41 years. 

3. Nephercheres, 4 years. 
Amenophthis, 9 years. 
Osochor, 6 years. 
Psinaches, 9 years. 
Psusennes, 35 years. 



4 
5 
6 

7 

Sum, 130 years. 



DYNASTY XXII. 

OF THREE BUBASTITE KINGS. 

1. Sesonchosis, 21 years. 

2. Osorthon, 15 years. 

3. Takelothis, 13 years. 
In all, 49 years. 



374 



APPENDIX, E. 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

DYNASTY XXIII. 

OF FOUR TANITE KINGS. 

1. Petubates, 40 years. In 
his time the first Olympiad 
commenced. 

2. Osorcho, 8 years, whom 
the Egyptians call Heracles. 

3. Psammus, 10 years. 

4. Zeet, 31 years. 
In all, 89 years. 

DYNASTY XXIV. 

Bocchoris, the Saite, 6 years, 
in whose time a lamb spoke, 99 
years.* 

DYNASTY XXV. 

OF THREE ETHIOPIAN KINGS. 

1. Sabakon, who, taking Boc- 
choris captive, burned him alive. 
He reigned 8 years. 

2. Sebichos, 14 years. 

3. Tarkus, 18 years. 
In all, 40 years. 

DYNASTY XXVI. 

OF NINE SAITE KINGS. 

1. Stephinates, 7 years. 

2. Nechepsos, 6 years. 

3. Nechao, 8 years. 

4. Psammeticus, 54 years. 

5. Necho II., 6 years. He 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

DYNASTY XXIII. 

OF THREE TANITE KINGS. 

1. Petubastis, 25 years. 

2. Osorthon, 9 years, whom 
the Egyptians called Heracles. 

3. Psammus, 10 years. 
In all, 44 years. 



DYNASTY XXIV. 

Bocchoris, the Saite, 44 years, 
in whose time a lamb spoke. 
In all, 44 years. 

DYNASTY XXV. 

OF THREE ETHIOPIAN KINGS. 

1. Sabakon, who, taking Boc- 
choris captive, burned him alive, 
and reigned 12 years. 

2. Sebichos, his son, 12 years. 

3. Tarakus, 20 years. 
In all, 40 years. 

DYNASTY XXVI. 

OF NINE SAITE KINGS. 

1. Ammeris, the Ethiopian, 
12 years. 

2. Stephinathes, 7 years. 

3. Nechepsos, 6 years. 

4. Nechaus, 8 years. 



* Thus in original. 



MANETHOS LISTS. 



375 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

took Jerusalem, and carried 
Joachaz, the king, captive to 
Egypt. 

6. Psammuthis (another), 6 
years. 

7. Vaphris, 19 years, to whom 
the remainder of the Jews fled 
when Jerusalem was taken by 
the Assyrians. 

8. Amosis, 44 years (86th of 
Syncellus). 

9. Psammecherites, 6 months. 
In all, 150 years and 6 months. 

DYNASTY XXVII. 

OF EIGHT PERSIAN KINGS. 

1. Cambyses reigned over 
Persia, his own kingdom, 5 
years, and over Egypt 6 years. 

2. Darius, son of Hystaspes, 
36 years. 

3. Xerxes the Great, 21 years. 

4. Artabanes, 7 months. 

5. Artaxerxes, 41 years. 

6. Xerxes, 2 months. 

7. Sogdianus, 7 months. 

8. Darius, son of Xerxes, 19 
years. 

In all, i24years and 4 months. 



DYNASTY XXVIII. 
Amyrteus, the Saite, 6 j^ears. 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 

5. Psametichus, 44 (45) years- 

6. Nechaus II., 6 years. He 
took Jerusalem, and led Joachas 
captive into Egypt. 

7. Psammuthis (another), who 
is Psametichus, 17 years. 

8. Vaphres, 25 years; to 
whom, Jerusalem being taken 
by the Assyrians, the remainder 
of the Jews fled for refuge. 

9. Amosis, 42 years. 
In all, 167 (163) years. 



DYNASTY XXVII. 

OF EIGHT PERSIAN KINGS. 

1. Cambyses, in the fifth 
year of his reign, ruled in 
Egypt 3 years. 

2. The Magi, 7 months. 

3. Darius, 36 years. 

4. Xerxes, son of Darius, 21 
years. 

5. Artaxerxes Longimanus, 
40 years. 

6. Xerxes II., 2 months. 

7. Sogdianus, 7 months. 

8. Darius, son of Xerxes, 19 
years. 

In all, 120 years and 4 months. 

DYNASTY XXVIII. 
Amyrtaeus, the Saite, 6 years. 



376 



APPENDIX, E, 



ACCORDING TO AFRICANUS. 

DYNASTY XXIX. 

OF FOUR MENDESIAN KINGS. 

1. Nepherites, 6 years. 

2. Achoris, 13 years. 

3. Psammuthis, i year. 

4. Nepherites, 4 months. 

In all, 20 years and 4 months. 



DYNASTY XXX. 

OF THREE SEBENNYTE KINGS. 

1. Nectanebibs, 18 years. 

2. Teos, 2 years. 

3. Nectanebus, 18 years. 
In all, 38 years. 

DYNASTY XXXI. 

OF THREE PERSIAN KINGS. 

1. Ochus, in the 20th year of 
his reign in Persia, reigned (be- 
gan to reign) in Egypt, 2 years. 

2. Arses, 3 years. 

3. Darius, 4 years. 

The whole number of years in 
the third book is 1050. Thus 
far Manetho. The subsequent 
history is to be sought from 
Grecian writers. 



ACCORDING TO EUSEBIUS. 



DYNASTY XXIX. 



OF 



four mendesian" kings 
(really five). 

1. Nepheritus, 6"years. 

2. Achoris, 13 years. 

3. Psammuthis, i year. 

4. Muthes, I year. 

5. Nepheritus, 4 months 

In all, 21 years and 4 months. 

DYNASTY XXX. 

of three SEBENNYTE KINGS. 

1. Nectanebus, 10 years. 

2. Teos, 2 years. 

3. Nectanebus, 8 years. 
In all, 20 years. 

DYNASTY XXXI. 

OF THREE PERSIAN KINGS. 

1. Ochus, in the 20th year of 
his reign in Persia, took Egypt, 
and reigned 6 (2) years. 

2. Arses, son of Ochus, 4 years. 

3. Then Darius, 6 years, whom 
Alexander of Macedon slew. 

These are the contents of the 
third book of Manetho. The 
subsequent history is related by 
Grecian writers. 



Syncellus, pp. 55-78. 



THE OLD CHRONICLE. 



377 



F. Page 74. 

THE OLD CHRONICLE. 

This is one of the most important fragments relating to 
Egyptian archasology that have come down to us from 
antiquity. It is found in Syncellus, pp. 51, 52. 



" Reign of the Gods according to the Old Chronicle. 

"The time of Hephaestus is not given, as he appeared both 
night and day. 













Years. 


Helius, the son of Hephaestus, reigned, 


. 


. 


30,000 


Then Kronos, and the other 12 gods, reigned 




3,984 


Then the 8 demigods, 


. 


. 


. 


217 


After these, they 


enumerate 15 generations of the 




Cynic Cycle, in 


. 


. 


. 


443 


Then the i6th dynasty 


of Tanites, 


8 generations. 


190 


" 17th 


( 


Memphites, 


4 




103 


i8th 


( 


a 


14 




348 


" 19th 


u 


Diospolites, 


5 




194 


" 20th 


( 


(( 


8 




228 


" 2ISt 


( 


Tanites, 


6 




121 


22d 


i 


a 


3 




48 


- 23d 


( 


Diospolites, 


2 ' 




19 


" 24th 


( 


Saites, 


3 




44 


" 25th 


( 


Ethiopians, 


3 




44 


26th 


( 


Memphites, 


7 




177 


*' 27th 


( 


Persians, 


5 




124 


[ " 28th 


ii 


Saite, 


I ' 




6]* 



* Supplied from Manetho, according to Eusebius and Afrl- 
canus. Sec Mailer's Frag. Hist. Grace, vol. ii. p. 534. 



378 APPENDIX, G. 

Years. 
Then the 29th dynasty of Tanites, 39 

Lastly, the 30th " Tanite, i generation, 15 

In all, 30 dynasties, and 36,525 years. 

" This number, resolved and divided into its parts, that is, 25 
times 1461, shows the time of the restitution (ScTiuxaTdoraaiv) 
of the zodiac, as fabled among the Egyptians and Greeks, which 
is its revolution from a particular point to the same again. This 
point is the first minute of the first degree of the equinoctial sign 
which they call the Ram, as is explained in the Genesis of 
Hermes, and the Cyraunian books." 



Gr. Page 77. 
ERATOSTHENES AND APOLLODORUS. 

The testimony of these two eminent writers is. so im- 
portant in Egyptian chronology, that a fuller exhibit 
should be made of the outlines of their system. 

Eratosthenes' list of names is as follows : — 

Years. 

1. First reigned Menes, a Thenite (i. e., a Theban), who 

is called Aionios (Eternal), . . . .62 

2. Athothis, son of Menes, surnamed Hermogenes, . 59 

3. Athothis II., ...... 32 

4. Diabies, son of Athothis, .... 19 

5. Pemphos, son of Athothis, called Herakleides, . 8 

6. Toigar, the Invincible, a Memphite monocheir, sur- 

named Tisandros, a giant, . . . .79 

7. Stoichos, his son, called Ares, the Senseless, *. 6 

8. Gosormies, the Desire of All, . . . .30 

9. Manes, his son, named Heliodorus (gift of the sun), 26 



ERATOSTHENIiS AND APOLLODORUS. 379 

Years. 

10. Anouphis, the Long-haired, . . . .20 

11. Sirios, named the son of the eye, ... 18 

12. Chnoubos Gneuros, i. e., Chrjses, son of Chrjses, . 2^ 

13. Rhanosis, the Supreme, .... 13 

14. Biuris, ....... 10 

15. Saophis, the Long-haired, called by some the Money- 

getter, . . , . ■ . . .29 

16. Saophis II., ...... 27 

17. Moscheres,Heliodotos (given by the sun), . . 31 

18. Mosthes, ...... 33 

19. Pammes, Ruler of the Land, . . . • 38 

20. Apappus, Most Great, .... 100 

21. Echeskosokaras, ...... i 

22. Nitokris, a woman, surnamed Athene, the Victorious, 6^ 

23. Myrtseos Ammonodotos (given by Amun), . . 22 

24. Thuosimares, the Mighty, the Sun, ... 12 

25. Thinillos, who increased the power of his father, . 8 

26. Semphroukrates, surnamed Hercules Arpocrates, 18 

27. Chouther Tauros, a tyrant, .... 7 

28. Meures, Philoskoros (Lover of the Eye), . . 12 

29. Chomaephtha, the World, loving Phtah, . . 11 

30. Soikunios, the Sharp, a tyrant, ... 60 

31. Peteathyres, . . . . . • 7(?) 

32. Sistosis(?) (Palmer supplies Ammenemes I.), . 42 

33. Ammenemes II., . . . . . .23 

34 Sistosichermes, the Strength of Hercules, . . 55 

35. Mares, ....... 43 

36. Siphoas, who is also Hermes, son of Phtah, . 5 

37. Phrouron, or Nilos, . . ' . . .19 

38. Amunthantaios, • . . ... 63 

Total, ..... 1076 

Several points here deserve attention. The first is the 
alleged commencement of the above list in the year of 



380 APPENDIX, G. 

the world 2900 {^ing rig^aio [ilv x(3 p :^ MjSh 70V x6(Tjj,ov), 
Bunsen and Lepsius assume that this date was added by 
Syncellus ; but of this there is no proof. Syncellus' own 
date for the creation of the world is B. C. 5500, and his 
era of Menes is B. C. 2776, i. e., in the year A. M. 2724, 
124 years earlier than that given in the list of Eratos- 
thenes. The particularity of the date A. M. 2900 
creates a strong probability that it was either given ex- 
pressly by the latter, or derived from some other definite 
date, which was well known, possibly that of the con- 
quest of Egypt by Cambyses, B. C. 525, or Artaxerxes 
Ochus, B. C. 341, from which it would be easy to reckon 
back to the beginning of the list. At any rate, it clearly 
was not a date given by Syncellus, and it can not be shown 
that it was not inserted by Eratosthenes himself This 
computation places Menes at 638 years after the flood, 
according to the LXX. 

The second point worthy of notice is the reason why 
Syncellus did not give the names of the fifty-three other 
Rings mentioned by Apollodorus. Bunsen is quite se- 
vere upon him for the omission. 

"The only natural explanation which suggested itself to us 
when making the inquiry, was that Syncellus lost his patience in 
epitomizing that list. With infinite pains he had toiled through 
the awkward Egyptian names it contained, and the Greek ver- 
sions of them, which he did not understand. With infinite pains 
he had made his calculations of the year of the world which coin- 
cided with each of the thirty reigns ; taking as his starting-point 
the nearest possible year after the flood, according to his system. 
In reference to the calculation of the Father of Chronology, he 
n^ade the epoch from the confusion of tongues down to Abra- 



ERATOSTHENES AND APOLLODORUS. 38 1 

ham as long as he thought admissible, and now, when he had 
arrived at the end of 1076 years, he was obliged to admit that 
all his pains had been thrown away. . . . He gives way to 
his ill humor, throws the list into the fire, and can not refrain 
from exclaiming, • Even those names are totally unmanageable; 
how much more these fifty- three !' " (Egypt's Place, etc., vol. ii. 
p. 456.) 

This charge of " losing his temper," we pass over with- 
out more notice. But the cause of it deserves a further 
remark. Syncellus found the list " unmanageable," and 
so, " in ill humor," cast it aside when less than half tran- 
scribed. The German savant himself finds no little diffi- 
culty of the same kind, and finds it much easier to dispose 
of the fifty-three names that were not transcribed. These, 
" the hasty words " of Syncellus, " prove most decisively 
were the kings of the middle empire, who 
reigned between the downfall of the old empire and the 
restoration, while the Hyksos had the supremacy, or at 
least possessed Lower Egypt and Memphis." This is a 
most remarkable assumption, and Bunsen acknowledges 
that Lepsius combats the position. The thirty-eight reigns 
came down to about B. C. 1525, according to Syncellus, 
bordering on the time of the restoration, as we understand 
Bunsen ; and besides, the chronology of Eratosthenes evi- 
dently was, that the whole 91 (= 38 + 53) reigns of The- 
ban kings covered the entire period from Menes till the 
time Egypt was conquered by Cambyses, about B. C. 
526; at least, the eighty-six reigns of Egyptian kings, 
given by Syncellus, cover the whole of this period, com- 
mencing 124 years earlier. 

Bunsen compares the names of the kings in this list 



382 APPENDIX, G. 

with those of Manetho, and of the thirty-eight he claims 
to find nineteen in the latter, which " are either identical 
with them, or so nearly so, that to any one moderately 
versed in the system of Egyptian royal nomenclature the 
actual or possible correspondence between the two sets 
will be at once apparent." (Vol. i. p. 124.) 

It is true that the two first names, Menes and Athothis, 
and the twenty-second, Nitocris, are the same in each list. 
Three or four names are nearly the same, as Stamme- 
nemes for Ammenemes, Saophis for Suphis, and two or 
three others, have some resemblance ; but to make Ram- 
mes to he the same as Thamphthis, Apappus as Phios, 
and Gosormies as Sesorthos, is making the " royal nom- 
enclature " a very indefinite affair. A name may be made 
anything or nothing. Bunsen says, " The occasional 
discrepancy in the years of the reigns may be satisfac- 
torily explained in various ways." Now, this " occasional 
discrepancy " is simply this : there is entire harmony in 
only three of the reigns he has identified ; the discrep- 
ancy is almost universal. 

The probability is, that some few of the names in 
the list of Eratosthenes are those of kings found in the 
list of Manetho ; but still a great difficulty remains, which 
Bunsen has done little or nothing to remove. 



MANETHO ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 383 

H. 

MANETHO ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 

" I SHALL begin with the writings of the Egyptians ; not indeed 
of those that have written in the Egyptian language, which it is 
impossible for me to do. But Manetho was a man who was by 
birth an Egyptian; yet had he made himself master of the Greek 
learning, as is very evident, for he wrote the history of his own 
country in the Greek tongue, by translating it, as he saith him- 
self, out of their sacred records ; he also finds great fault with 
Herodotus for his ignorance and false relation of Egyptian affairs. 
Now, this Manetho, in the second book of his Egyptian history, 
writes concerning us in the following manner. I will set down 
his very words, as if I were to bring the man himself into a court 
for a witness. 

" ' There was a king of ours, whose name was Timafls. Under 
him it came to pass, I know not how, that God was averse to us; 
and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth 
out of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an 
expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force, 
yet without our hazarding a battle with them. So when they 
had gotten those that governed us under their power, they after- 
wards burnt down our. cities, and demolished the temples of the 
gods, and used all the inhabitants after a most barbarous man- 
ner; nay, some they slew, and led their children and their wives 
into slavery. At length they made one of themselves king, 
whose name was Salatts ; he also lived at Memphis, and made 
both the upper and lower regions pay tribute, and left garrisons 
in places that were the most proper for them. . . . When 
this man had reigned thirteen years, after him reigned another, 
whose name was Bcon, for forty-four years; after him reigned 
another, called ApacAnas, thirty-six years and seven months; 



384 APPENDIX, H. 

after him Apophis reigned sixtj-one years, and then Jamas fifty 
years and one month; after all these reigned -^455/5 forty-nine 
years and two months. And these six were the first rulers 
among them, who were all along making war with the Egyptians, 
and were very desirous, gradually, to destroy them to the very 
roots. This whole nation was styled Hycsos, that is. Shepherd- 
kings ; for the first syllable, Hyc, according to the sacred dialect, 
denotes a king, as is Sos a she;pherd — but this according to the 
ordinary dialect; and of these is compounded Hycsos. But 
some say that these people were Arabians.' Now, in another 
copy it is said that this word does not denote kings, but, on the 
contrary, denotes captive shepherds, and this on account of the 
particle Hyc ; for that Hyc, with the aspiration in the Egyptian 
tongue again, denotes shepherds, and that expressly also ; and this, 
to me, seems the more probable opinion, and more agreeable to 
ancient history. [But Manetho goes on :] ' These people, whom 
we have before named kings, and called shepherds also, and their 
descendants,' as he says, ' kept possession of Egypt five hundred 
and eleven years.' After these he says, ' That the kings of The- 
bais, and of other parts of Egypt, made an insurrection against 
the Shepherds, and that a terrible and long war was made between 
them.' He saj^s further: 'That under a king, whose name was 
Alis-phragmuthosis, the Shepherds were subdued by him, and 
were indeed driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up 
in a place that contained ten thousand acres ; this place was 
named Avaris.' Manetho says, ' That the Shepherds built a wall 
round all this place, which was a large and strong wall, and 
this in order to keep all their possessions and their prey within a 
place of strength, but that Thummosis, the son of Alisphrag- 
muthosis, made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, 
with four hundred and eighty thousand men to lie round about 
them ; but that, upon his despair of taking the place by that 
siege, they came to a composition with them, that they should 
leave Egypt anet go, without any harm to be done to them, 
whithersoever they would ; and that after this composition was 



MANETHO ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 385 

made, they went away, with their whole famih'es and effects, not 
fewer in number than two hundred and forty thousand, and took 
their journey from Egypt through the wilderness for Syria; but 
that as they were in fear of the Assyrians, who had then the do- 
minion over Asia, they built a city in that country which is now 
called Judea, and that large enough to contain this great nunnber 
of men, and called it Jerusalem.' Now Manetho, in another book 
of his, says, 'That this nation thus called Shepherds were also 
called captives in their sacred books.' And this account of his is 
the truth ; for feeding of sheep was the employment of our fore- 
fathers in the most ancient ages; and as they led such a wan- 
dering life in feeding sheep, they were called shepherds. Nor 
was it without reason that they were called captives by the 
Egyptians, since one of our ancestors, Joseph, told the king of 
Egypt that he was a captive, and afterward sent for his brethren 
into Egypt, by the king's permission; but as for these matters, I 
shall make a more exact inquiry about them elsewhere. 

" But now I shall produce the Egyptians as witness to the an- 
tiquity of our nation. I shall therefore here bring in Manetho 
again, and what he writes as to the order of the times in this 
case ; and thus he speaks : ' When this people, or Shepherds, 
were gone out of Egypt to Jerusalem, Tethinosis, the king of 
Egypt who drove them out, reigned afterward twenty-five years 
and four months, and then died; after him his son, Chebron, 
took the kingdom for thirteen years; after whom came ^/wewo- 
phi's, for twenty years and seven months ; then came his sister, 
Amesses, for twenty-one years and nine months; after her came 
Mephres, for twelve years and nine months ; after her was" 
MephramutJiosis, for twenty-five years and ten months ; after 
him was Tethmosis, for nine years and eight months; after him 
came Amcjiophis^ for thirty years and ten months ; after him 
came Orus, for thirty-six years and five months ; then came his 
daughter, Acencheres, for twelve years and one month ; then was 
her brother, Raihotis, for nine years; then was Acencheres^ for 
twelve years and five months ; then came another Acencheres^ 
25 



386 APPENDIX, H. 

for twelve years and three months; after him Armais. for four 
years and one month ; after him was Ramesses, for one year and 
four months; after him came Armesses Mtammoun, for sixty 
years and two months; after him Ame?iophts, for nineteen years 
and six months; after him came Set/iost's, and Rajnesses, who 
had an army of horse and a naval force. This king appointed 
his brother Armais to be his deputy over Egypt.' In another 
copy it stood thus : ' After him came Sethosis and Harnesses^ two 
brethren, the former of whom had a naval force, and in a hostile 
manner destroyed those that met him upon the sea; but as he 
slew Ramesses in no long time afterward, so he appointed* 
another of his brethren to be his deputy over Egypt. He also 
gave him all the authority of a king, but with these only injunc- 
tions, that he should not wear the diadem, nor be injurious to 
the queen, the mother of his children, and that he should not 
meddle with the other concubines of the king; while he made 
an expedition against Cyprus and Phoenicia, and beside against 
the Assyrians and the Medes. He then subdued them all, some 
by his arms, some without fighting, and some by the terror of 
his great army; and being puffed up by the great success he had 
had, he still went on the more boldly, and overthrew the cities 
and countries that lay in the eastern parts ; but after some con- 
siderable time, Armais, who was left in Egypt, did all these very 
things, by the way of opposition, which his brother had forbidden 
him to do, without fear; for he used violence to the queen,- and 
continued to make use of the rest of the concubines, without 
sparing any of them ; nay, at the persuasion of his friends he 
put on the. diadem, and set up to oppose his brother; but then he 
who was set over the priests of Egypt w-rote letters to Sethosis, 
and informed him of all that had happened, and how his brother 
had set up to oppose him; he therefore returned back to Pelu- 
sim immediately, and recovered his kingdoms again. The 
country also was called from his name Egyj)t ; for Manetho says 
that Sethosis himself was called Egyptus, as was his brother 
Armais called Danaus.' " 



MANETHO ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS. 



387 



The language of the last paragraph gives rise to a doubt 
as to where the quotation from Manetho should close. We 
have placed the quotation marks as we find them in the 
translation of Whiston. 

For the sake of convenience in comparing this list of 
Josephus with those of Africanus and Eusebius for the 
same period in history, we arrange the names in a concise 
tabular form : — 



OF SHEPHERD KINGS. 



Years. Months. 



1. Salatis, i§ 

2. Beon, . . . • . . . '44 

3. Apachnas, ..... 36 

4. Apophis, . . . . . .61 

5. Janias, 50 

6. Assis, ....... 49 



KINGS OF THEBAIS, OR THOSE AFTER THE EX- 
PULSION OF THE SHEPHERDS. 



1. Tethmosis, . 

2. Chebron, 

3. Amenophis*, 

,4. Amesses, his sister, 

5. Mephres, 

6. Mephramuthosis, . 

7. Thmosis, 

8. Amenophis, . 

9. Horus, . 



10. Acencheres, his daughter, 

11. Rathotis, her brother. 



12. Acencheres, . 

13. Acencheres, another, 



fears. 


Months. 


25 


4 


13 




20 


7 


21 


9 


12 


9 


25 


ID 


9 


8 


30 


10 


36 


5 


12 


I 


9 




12 


5 


13 


3 



388 APPENDIX, H. 

Years. Mdnths. 

14. Armais,' 4 i 

15. Ramesses, . . . . ' . i 4 

16. Armesses, son of Miammes, . . 66 2 

17. Amenophis, 19. 6 

19. Sethosis, who is Ramesses. 

Ill comparing these names of Josephus with the cor- 
responding ones of Africanus and Eusebius, the following 
points of resemblance and discrepancy appear : — 

As to the Shepherd kings: Africanus has 81 names, 
whose reigns (allotting one half of the duration of the 
17th dynasty to the Shepherds) covered 877 years ; Euse- 
bius gives 4 names, with a period of 103 years ; and Jose- 
phus 6, with a period of 260 years, saying that the time 
the Shepherds dwelt in Egypt was 518 years. 

Africanus assigns the 15th, i6th, and a part of the 17th 
dynasty to the Shepherds ; Eusebius makes the 17th dy- 
nasty only to consist of Shepherd kings* 

The 15th dynasty of Africanus, of 6 Shepherd kings, 
corresponds nearly with the 6 Shepherd kings of Jose- 
phus, three or four of the names being nearly alike, and 
the duration of five reigns being exactly the same, months 
excepted, the other reign differing by 25 years. 

In view of these facts, we think we are warranted in 
drawing the following conclusion : — 

The Manetho of Josephus is not the same person as 
the Manetho of Africanus and Eusebius ; or if, as some 
suppose (e. g., Bunsen, as w^e understand bim), Africanus 
made an epitome of the work from which Josephus 
quotes, or used one made by others before him (Eusebius 



MANETHO ACCORDING TO JOSEPHU3* 389 

only having before him the epitome of Africanus), this 
epitome was so imperfect- and erroneous, or is so corrupt 
through carelessness or design, or both, that it is of little 
or no critical value, except in its later portions. But the 
supposition that the lists of Africanus and Eusebius are 
epitomized from the work which Josephus quotes, can not 
be sustained on critical grounds. The Jewish historian 
quotes in extenso a number of passages from a work of 
Manetho in three books, which he says the latter wrote in 
Greek, translating from the Egyptian language ; his ex- 
tracts are in good Greek, quoted, professedly, verbatim ; 
he gives the duration of the reigns in years and montihs, 
stating the historical incidents connected with them in 
his4:orical style. Now, in an epitome of such a work, 
should we not at least expect an essential correspondence 
in names (since the language is the same), and in the 
duration of the reigns, and in the principal historical in- 
cidents, that might be noticed? But what is the fact? 
Why, in regard to the so-called Shepherd kings, where 
Josephus gives six names, covering a period of 260 years, 
Africanus speaks of 81 kings, covering a period of about 
877 ye^ars ; of the six names which the latter gives of the 
Shepherds in his 15th dynasty, none are exactly the same 
as those of Josephus, three have a near resemblance, and 
three are almost entirely ditTerent, the duration of five of 
the reigns being exactly the same, the months excepted. 
71ie latter fact identifies historically the 15th dynasty of 
Africanus with the six kings mentioned by Josephus ; 
while the discrepancy in the names, and the additional 
number of Shepherd kings which constitute his i6th and 



390 APPENDIX, H. 

17th dynasty, show that the list was not derived from 
the same work which Josephus quotes, but from other 
documents and records, which were perhaps but imper- 
fectly understood. The same is true in regard to the 
succeeding seventeen names given by Josephus, which 
evidently make the i8th dynasty of Africanus ; while 
some resemblance in names, and a correspondence in- 
duration in reigns, identify the kings historically, yet the 
discrepancies clearly prove that the list of Africanus could 
not have been derived from the work which Josephus 
quotes, but from other sources, perhaps the original rec- 
ords from which that work was compiled, not perfectly 
understood. Different translators would ti'ansfer the same 
names in a different form ; and in regard to such records* 
as those of ancient Egypt, parts would be obscure, and 
naturally understood differently by different interpreters. 

The supposition, then, which best' harmonizes with all 
the known facts of the case, is,' that the Manetho of Jose- 
phus is not the Manetho of Africanus and Eusebius ; that 
the list of Africanus was derived from another work than 
that quoted by Josephus, perhaps the so-called Pseudo- 
Manetho, or some writer who undertook to rearrange the 
dynasties, and put forth his work under the name of the 
first leading writer of Egyptian history. He may have 
stated that his work was mainly compiled from that of 
the original Manetho, which statement has not been 
preserved. 



CHINESE ASTRONOMY. 39I 

I, Page 127. 
CHINESE ASTRONOMY. 

The following, from the Shu-King, is the entire origi- 
nal pasgage on which is based the high claim for the Chi- 
nese of a knowledge of astronomy as early as the 24th 
century B. C. : — 

" Thereupon Yaou commanded He and Ho, in reverent accord- 
ance with their observation of the wide heavens, to calculate and 
delineate the movements and appearances of the sun, the moon, 
the stars, and the zodiacal spaces, and so to deliver respectfully 
the same to the people. 

" He separately commanded the second brother He to reside at 
Yu-e, in what was called the Bright Valley, and there respectfully 
to receive, as a guest, the rising sun, and to adjust and arrange 
the labors of the spring. ' The day,' he said, ' is of the medium 
length, and the star is in Neaou, You may thus exactly deter- 
mine mid-spring. The people begin to disperse, and birds and 
beasts breed and copulate.' 

"He further commanded the third brother He to reside at 
Neankeaou, and arrange the transformations of summer, and 
respectfully to observe the extreme limit of the shadow. ' The 
day,' said he, ' is at its longest, and the star is Ho ; you may thus 
exactly determine mid-summer. The people are more dispersed ; 
and the birds and beasts have their feathers and hair thin, and 
change their coats.' \ 

" He separately commanded the second brother Ho to reside 
at the west, in what was called the Dark Valley, and there re- 
spectfully to convoy the setting sun, and to adjust and arrange 
the completing labors of the autumn. ' The night,' he said, ' is 
of the medium length, and the star is Heu ; you may thus exactly 



392 APPENDIX, I. 

determine mid-autumn. The people begin to feel at ease, and 
birds and beasts have their coats in good condition.' 

" He further commanded the third brother Ho to reside in the 
northern region, in what was called the Sombre Capital, 
and there to adjust and examine the changes of the winter. 
' The day,' said he, ' is at its shortest, and the star is Maou ; 
thus you may exactly determine mid- winter. The people keep 
their cosy corners ; and the coats of birds and beasts ate downy 
and thick.' 

" The emperor said, 'Ah, you! He and Ho, a round year con- 
sists of three hundred and sixty and six days. By means of an 
intercalary month do you fix the four seasons, and complete the 
determination of the year. Thereafter, in exact accordance with 
this regulating the various officers, all the works of the j^ear will 
be fully performed." — Chinese Classics, vol. iii. part i. pp. 18-21. 

"Now here are He and Ho. They have entirely subverted 
their virtue, and are sunk and lost in wine. They have violated 
the duties of their office, and left their posts. They have been the 
first to allow the regulations of heaven to get into disorder, put- 
ting far from them their proper business. On the first day of 
the last month of autumn, the sun and moon did not meet har- 
moniously in Fang. The blind musicians beat their drums ; the 
inferior officers and common people bustled and ran about. .He 
and Ho, however, as if they were mere person ators of the dead 
in their offices, heard nothing and knew nothing — so stupidly 
went they astray from their duty in the matter of the heavenly 
appearances, and rendered themselves liable to the death ap- 
pointed by former kings. The statutes of the government say, 
' When they anticipate the time, let them be put to death without 
mercy ; when they are behind the time, let them be put to death 
without mercy ! '" — Id. p. 165. 



DIVERSITIES BETWEEN RACES. 393 



J. Page 198. 

SUPERFICIAL CHARACTER OF DIVERSITIES 
BETWEEN RACES. 

The greatest physical difference between any two races 
is, of course, that which exists between the blacks and 
the whites, or rather between the Negro and the Cauca- 
sian. If this be not sufficient to constitute difference of 
species, it will be conceded that such difference does not 
exist. Upon this point the following statements are wor- 
thy to be considered : — 

"The ablest living anatomist of Germany — Professor Tiede- 
mann — has lately directed his researches with singular felicity to 
the vindication of the uncivilized man's capacity for improve- 
ment. In the w^orks mentioned at the head of this article, and 
in the translation read at the Royal Society of London, of which 
the professor is a foreign member, that important question seems 
to be set at rest forever. The results of a most exact analysis of 
cases are thus stated by him : — 

" ' I. The brain of the negro is, upon the whole, quite as large 
as that of the European and other human races. The weight of 
the brain, its dimensions, and the capacity of the cavum cranii, 
prove this fact. Many anatomists have also incorrectly asserted 
that Europeans have a larger brain than negroes. 

"'2. The nerves of the negro, relatively to the size of the 
brain, are not thicker than those of Europeans, as Soemmerring 
and his followers have said. 

"'3. The outward form of the spinal cord, the medulla ob- 
longata, the cerebellum, and cerebrum of the negro show no 
important difference from those of the European. 

" ' 4. Nor does the inward structure — the order of the cortical 



394 APPENDIX, J. 

and medullary substance — nor the inward organization of the 
negro brain show any difference from those of the European. 

"'5. The negro brain does not resemble that of the orang- 
outang more than the European brain, except in the more sym- 
metrical distribution of the gyri and"sula. It is not even certain 
that this is always the case. We can not, therefore, coincide with 
the opinion of many naturalists, who say that the negro has 
more resemblance to apes than Europeans in reference to the 
brain and nervous system.' " 

And after a minute survey of proofs respecting the 
intellectual faculties of the negro, Professor Tiedemann 
concludes in the following words : — 

"The principal result of my researches on the brain of the 
negro is, that neither anatomy nor physiology can justify our 
placing them beneath Europeans in a moral or mtellectual point 
of view." * 

Another distinguished ethnologist, in defining a negro, 
says,— 

"The negroes are referable to an extreme rather than a nor- 
mal type ; and so far are they from being co-extensive with the 
Africans, that it is almost exclusively along the valleys of rivers 
that they are to be found. There are none in the extratropical 
parts of Northern, none in the corresponding parts of Southern 
Africa, and but few on the table-lands of even the two sides of 
the equatcrr. Their areas, indeed, are scanty and small. One 
lies on the Upper Nile, one on the Lower Gambia and Sen-egal, 
one on the Lower Niger, and the last along the western coast, 
where the smaller rivers that originate in the Kong Mountains 
form hot and moist alluvial tracts." ^ 

Again : — 

"If the word negro mean the combination of woolly hair with 
a jetty black skin, depressed nose, thick lips, narrow forehead, 
acute facial angle, and prominent jaw, it applies to Africans as 

* For. Quarterly Review, Oct., 1839. 



DIVERSITIES BETWEEN RACES. 395 

widely different from each other as the Laplander is from the 
Samoeid and Eskimo, or the Englishman from the Finlander. 
It applies to the inhabitants of certain portions of different river- 
sjstems, independent of relationship, and vice versa. The ne- 
groes of Kordofan are nearer in descent to the Copts and Arabs 
than are the lighter-colored and civilized Fulahs. They are 
also nearer to the same than they are to the blacks of Senegam- 
bia. If this be the case, the term has no place in ethnology, 
except so far as its extensive use makes it hard to abandon. Its 
real application is to anthropology, wherein it means the effects 
of certain influences upon certain intertropical Africans, irrespec- 
tive of descent, but not irrespective of physical condition. As 
truly as a short stature and light skin coincide with the occu- 
pancy of mountain ranges, the negro physiognomy coincides 
with that of the alluvia of rivers." * 

Dr. Livingstone, the great African traveler, is a writer 
whose opinions few will dare to dispute. He says, — 

"All the inhabitants of this region, as well as those of Londa, 
may be called true negroes, if the limitations formerly made be 
borne in mind. The dark color, thick lips, heads elongated 
backwards and upwards, and covered with wool, flat noses, with 
other negro peculiarities, are general ; but while these character- 
istics place them in the true negro family, the reader would 
imbibe a wrong idea if he supposed that all these features com- 
bined are often rriet with in one individual. All have a certain 
thickness and prominence of lip, but many are met with in every 
village in whom thickness and prominence are not more marked 
than in Europeans. All are dai'k, but the color is shaded off in 
different individuals from deep black to light yellow. As we go 
westward, we observe the light color predominating over the 
dark; and then again, when we come within the influence of 
damp from the sea air, we find the shade deepen into the general 
blackness of the coast population. The shape of the head, with 
its woolly crop, though general, is not univcK- al. The tribes on 

* Latham, Man and his Migrations, p. 147. 



396 APPENDIX, J. 

the eastern side of the continent, as the CafFres, have heads finely 
developed, and strongly European. Instances of this kind are 
frequently seen, and after I became so familiar with the dark 
color as to forget it in viewing the countenance, I was struck 
by the strong resemblance some nations bore to certain of our 
own notabilities. The Bushmen and Hottentots are exceptions 
to these remarks, for both the shape of their heads and growth 
of wool are peculiar — the latter, for instance, springs from the 
scalp in tufts, with bare spaces between, and, when the crop is 
short, resembles a number of black pepper-corns stuck on the 
skin, and very unlike the thick, frizzly masses which cover the 
heads of the Balonda and Maravi. With every disposition to 
pay due deference to the opinions of those who have made eth- 
nology their special study, I have felt myself unable to believe 
that the exaggerated features usually put forth as those of the 
typical negro characterize the majority of any nation of South 
Central Africa. The monuments of the ancient Egyptians seem 
to me to embody the ideal of the inhabitants of Londa better 
than the figures of any work of Ethnology I have met with." — 
Livingstone's Researches in South Africa. London ed., 1857, 
ch. xix. p. 378. 

The following facts and opinions respecting the negro 
race are from the work of another recent African traveler.* 

Having given a physical description of the negro 
which would satisfy any negi'o-hater, the writer pro- 
ceeds as follows : — 

" Thus it has been proved by measurements, by microscopes, 
by analysis, that the typical negro is something between a child, 

* " Savage Africa: Being the Narrative of a Tour in Equa- 
torial, South-western, and North-western Africa. . . . By 
Winwood Reade, Fellow of the Geographical and Anthropologi- 
cal Societies of London, and Corresponding Member of the 
Geographical Society of Paris. Second edition, London. 



DIVERSITIES BETWEEN RACES. 397 

a dotard, and a beast. I can not struggle against these sacred 
facts of science; I can not venture tCT dispute the degradation of 
the negro. But I contend that it is only degradation ; that it is 
the result of disease ; that it is not characteristic of the African 
continent; and that it is confined to a small geographical area. 
. . . But first I will remove the great stumbling-block of 
African ethnology. By defining the geography of the negro, I 
shall pave the way for the elucidation of that mystery which has 
perplexed the philosophers of all ages — the negro's place in 
nature. 

" Those who denj' that the negro type has been produced by 
natural causes, have alleged that there are two distinct races in 
Africa, — the red and the black, — and that they inhabit the 
same localities. The reader will bear in mind that a series of 
mountain terraces runs along the whole length of Western 
Africa, and that between them and the sea are low and malarious 
swamps. These mountains are inhabited by the true African — 
a red-skinned race. Nations of these, descending into the 
swamps, have become degraded in body and mind, and their 
type completely changed. 

'* The negro forms an exceptional race in Africa. He inhabits 
that immense tract of marshy land which lies between the moun- 
tains and the sea, from Senegal to Benguela, and the lowlands 
of the eastern side in the same manner. He is found in the 
parts about Lake Tchad, in Sennaar, along the marshj' banks 
of rivers, and in several isolated spots besides. But he is not 
found in the vast tracts which are occupied by the Berbers on 
the north, and the Bitshuanas of the south. He is not found in 
the highlands of Ethiopia, nor in those of Soudan. 

" In Africa there are three grand races, as there maybe said to 
be three grand geological divisions. 

"The Libyan stock inhabit the primitive and volcanic tracts. 
They have a tawny complexion, Caucasian features, and long 
black hair. 

" On the sand-stones will be found an intermediate type. 



398 APPENDIX, J. 

They are darker than their parents ; they have short and very 
curly hair; their lips are thick, and their nostrils wide at the base. 

"And, finally, in the alluvia, one will find the negroes with a 
black skin, woolly hair, and prognathous development. 

" I do not mean to assert that light-colored tribes are never 
found in the alluvia, and that true negroes can never be met with 
in the dry plateaus. There is in Africa a continual movement 
towards the west. It is, therefore, common enough to see Fulas 
and Mandingos inhabiting the lowlands of Senegambia; and the 
light-colored Fans are beginning to occupy the banks of the 
Gaboon. In the same manner, a tribe of negroes migrating 
across the continent from the east coast might be met with in a 
sandy desert of Central Africa. 

" My assertion that the negro is as exceptional a race in Africa 
as the livid inhabitants of the Fens in England, or of the Pontine 
marshes in Italy, and that he inhabits, comparatively speaking, 
a small geographical area, will excite great surprise. There is a 
general delusion respecting the negro which is not difficult to 
explain. The whole western coast, and a great portion of the 
eastern coast, are inhabited by negroes. It is natural that trav- 
elers and coast residents should accept them as types of the 
races of the continent. The slaves that have been imported into 
the New World were almost exclusively brought from these 
regions; and I have always observed that slaves, even among 
negroes, present a lower type than that of the surrounding popu- 
lation. These also have been examined, and written upon by 
naturalists as true samples of the African." — pp. 509, 513. 

In regard to the cause of color in man, a distinguished 
French savant * writes as follows : — 

"When we seek for the cause of coloration in the human skin, 
an anatomical analysis presents particulars to which sufficient 

* De rUnite des Races Humaines. Par M. Ladevi Roche, 
Pi-ofesseur Honoraire de Philosophic a la Faculte de Lettres de 
Bordeaux. 



DIVERSITIES BETWEEN RACES. 399 

attention has not been given. In proceeding from the outside, 
we at first meet with that thin, light pellicle, transparent and 
colorless tissue, called the epidermis ; and immediately below, 
the microscope reveals the colored matter called the pigmentary 
body (from the 'L,2X\x\ pigmentum^ painting), formed of a multi- 
tude of granules, and always presenting a yellow, red, or black 
tint, which is reflected by the transparency of the epidermis. 
They (the polygenists) have gone further : they have wished to 
descend even to the true skin of man, to the dermis^ in which are 
the roots of the hair, ... in the hope of finding there the 
efficient cause of coloration in the pigmentary matter. But, oh, 
surprise ! The dermis, the true skin of man, which they thought 
to find black, yellow, red, or copper-colored, and, by these differ- 
ent shades, to jjistify the distinction and plurality of races, — the 
dermis, I say, turned and returned in every way, examined by 
the lens and the microscope, in the white, in the black, in the 
red, and in the yellow, constantly offers itself to the astonished 
eye with a u7uform color of faded white, as soon as it is disen- 
gaged from the blood that covers it; and we have been forced to 
recognize — so evident was the fact — that the true skin of man 
— the two tissues which cover it being removed — was of the 
same complexion (^d'une teinte unicoloree) in all men, and that, 
in this relation, no doubt can be entertained respecting the unity 
of the human races. Thus the variety of coloration depends 
solely on the presence of the pigmentary body. This body is a 
cellular network, of which each cell contains, under the form of 
granules, the coloring matter. It is very apparent in individuals 
who are black, red, olive, or tawny; it is less, and sometimes 
not at all, in those that are white; so that the first observers 
declared that in the white man there was no trace of it — that 
which creates a difference between the white race and the other 
three. And already, taking advantage of this peculiarity, the 
polygenists cry with an air of triumph (G. Pouchet, p. 74), ' Be- 
hold an appendage {appareil) which is wanting in the white man, 
which the negro possesses, and which he alone possesses ! Be- 



400 APPENDIX, J. 

hold a fundamental difference in the name of which we are able 
to proclaim the non-communitj of origin in the races! ' 

"Not ^o iz.%t {ne voiis pressez pas i'««zf), Messieurs ; jou have 
nothing to proclaim. New researches, made with more care, by 
M. Flourens in France, and bj M. Simon at Berlin, have dis- 
covered the pigmentary appendage even in the white. It is its 
presence which gives to the areole mamelon its brown color, and 
it is its appearance which, under the influence of the sun's rajs? 
causes to appear blotches of red so frequent in men of a blond 
color. It has been found again bj M. Flourens throughout the 
entire skin of a French soldier, who died in Algeria; which 
would lead one to think that men carry in them the germ of this 
appendage, and that different outward influences, among which 
it is necessary to reckon climate, provoke its development (Go- 
dron, vol. ii. p. 144.) . . . In the face of these facts, will the 
polygenists attempt to aflfirm that between the white and the 
black there is an impassable gulf.'* 

'■^ The ptgmentum, or the coloring matter, which covers the 
surface of the dermis, and transmits its color to the epidermis, 
does not exist in the new-born infant, and commences to exist 
only some time after birth; it is asked. What is the cause of this.? 
To this question several answers have been given. Some have 
said the formative cause is climate ; others, that it is alirnentary 
regime; others, that it is the hygrometric state of the air; others, 
that it is the excess of carbon, which the blood contains in very 
warm countries. This diversity of opinions in regard to the 
true formative agent of the pigmentary substance, proves that 
science is not yet settled on this point. But let us mark well 
that the indecision of science on this point does not weaken the 
ceftainty, (i.) of the existence of the pigmentary body; (2.) of 
the uniformity of color in the dermis; (3.) of the infinite variety 
of colors in each race; (4.) of the generation of the white by the 
black and the black by 'the white; and as all these facts concur 
to demonstrate the unity of the human races, we see that this 
unity is altogether independent of the different explications 



VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 4OI 

proposed, and not yet recognized as true, of the formation of the 
coloring matter;" 

Again : — 

"They have desired to make the hairoi the negro a character- 
istic of the race, saying that they alone have crisped or woolly 
hair. But they have forgotten to tell us that negroes offer in 
this, as in all other respects, the greatest variety. There are 
some with straight, smooth hair, others who have it curled, and 
others still who have long hair descending to the shoulders. In 
all cases, where the hair is crispy, it is never woolly. The hair, 
it is true, presents the appearance of wool, because it combines 
with it a kind of thick oil, soft to the touch ; but its anatomical 
conformation is different. The filaments of a fleece present 
small asperities, which permit them to felt, that is to say, to be 
entaYigled in such a manner as to form a tissue. Their free ends 
are thicker than the other* — a property that is never met with in 
the hair of the negro, from which neither cloth, nor anything 
resembling woolen stuff, can be made. L. Remusat, Revue de 
Deux Mondes, May, 1854." 



li. Page 202. 

VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG DOMESTIC 
ANIMALS. 

And here I need only allude to a few prominent facts. 

I. Swine. 
Naturalists are generally agreed that all varieties of 
swine are descended from the wild boar ; jand yet what a 

* Leur bord libre est plus epais que leur autre extremity, 
t "The hog descends from the common boar, now found wild 
over the whole temperate zone in the Old World." (Agassiz, in 

26 



402 APPENDIX, K. 

great variety of races are now known to exist ! When 
transported into different climates, e. g., into South Amer- 
ica, the change is sometimes very great. " Some have 
acquired erect ears, vaulted foreheads, and heads much 
larger than were found in the original breed. With some 
the color becomes black, and with others the skin acquires 
a thick fur, beneath which is a species of wool. Some, 
again, are red ; others have solid hoofs. One breed is 
found, in Quebaya, with toes half a span long, white ears, 
pendent belly, and long tusks, crooked like the horns of 
oxen." • 

There is a variety of swine in Hungary with solid 
hoofs, and a breed with the same peculiar characteristics 
has appeared in the Red River country, in the United 
States. The difference, in the form of the crania of the 
varieties of swine — especially of the wild and the tame — 
is greater than is found among the most dissimilar of the 
human races, e. g., the Negro and the Caucasian. 

2. Sheep. 

Very marked varieties have sprung up among sheep. 
And here we need not feel embarrassed in our argument 
by the fact that it has been, and still is, disputed what was 
the origin of the sheep ; * whether the different varieties 
sprang from one or a number of primitive distinct species. 
All we have to do is to consider a few marked cases of a 

a " Sketch of Natural World, and their Relation to the different 
Types of Men," published " Types of Mankind," p. Ixvii. 

* In regard to the single or plural origin of the species of our 
domestic animals in general, the following opinion of Quatre- 
fages is of great weight : ''These examples will suffice to show 



VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 4O3 

change of type in the same stock when subjected to differ- 
ent chmatic influences. It is well known that sheep were 
not found on the western continent till after its discovery 
in the latter part of the 15th century ; hence the cases of 
marked change in the same stock are perfectly authentic. 

"Among those introduced into South America, a hairy breed 
has sprung up. A breed has been found with monstrous tails ; 
others are found with projecting lips and pendent ears." * 

*' Several accounts have been published of the change which 
sheep from Europe undergo in the West Indies. Dr. Nicholson, 
of Antigua, informs me that, after the third generation, the 
wool disappears from the whole body, except over the loins ; and 
the animals then appear like a goat with a dirty door-mat on its 
back. A similar change is said to take place on the west coast 
of Africa." t 

" In some few instances new breeds have suddenly originated. 
Thus, in 1791, a ram lamb was born in Massachusetts having 
short crooked legs, and a long back, like a turn-spit dog. From 
this one lamb the otter or ancon semi-monstrous breed was 
raised. • As these sheep could not leap over fences, it was thought 
they would be valuable ; but they have been supplanted by meri- 
nos, and thus exterminated." % They would breed truly, always 

that the profound study of our domestic races always leads more 
and more to attach to the same species all those which bear the 
same name, however different they may be.^' — ^uatrefag-es. 
Unite de VEspece Humaine^ p. 107. 

* Brace, Races of the Old World, p. 455, referring to De 
Salles. 

t Darwin, Variations of Animals and Plants, vol. i. p. 124, 
who refers to his numerous authorities for these and other facts. 

X Ibid, p. 126. The same fact is noticed by Cabell (p. 37), 
Quatrefages and other writers. It is an undoubted case of a 
new breed or variety springing up from a well-known stock, and 
hence, in its analogical bearings, is of great importance. 



404 APPENDIX, K. 

producing ancon offspring. ^' When crossed with other breeds, 
the offspring, with rare exceptions, instead of being intermediate, 
perfectly resembled either parent." 

"A more interesting case has been recorded in the report of 
the juries of the great exhibition (1851), namely, the production 
of a merino ram lamb in 1828, which was remarkable for its 
long, smooth, straight, and silky wool." * 

"The sheep of Yemen introduced into Egypt have acquired a 
straight, rude hair, with a fine down at its roots. Some of the 
merino sheep are covered with wool, and others with hair, quite 
differing in structure; and sometimes the same individual, 
under new circumstances, shows the changes ifrom wool to 
hair."t 

3. Cattle. 

Darwin remarks, — 

"That many breeds of cattle have originated through varia- 
tion, independently of descent from distinct species, we may 
infer from what we see in South America, where the genus 
Bos was not endemic, and where the cattle, which now exist 
in such vast numbers, are the descendants of a few imported 
from Spain and Portugal. In Colombia, Roulin describes two 
peculiar breeds, namely, pelones, with extremely thin and fine 
hair, and calongos, absolutely naked. ... In Paraguay, 
Azara describes a breed which certainly originated in South 
America, called chivos, ' because they have straight, vertical 
horns, conical, and very large at the base.' He likewise de- 
scribes a dwarf race in Corrientes, with short horns ; and 
others, with reversed hair, have also originated in Paraguay." 

Darwin then mentions a " monstrous breeds called 
niatas, or natas," two small herds of which he saw on the 
banks of the Plata. " This breed," he says, " bears the same 

* Darwin, Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 120. 
t Brace, Races of the Old World, p. 455. 



VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 405 

relation to other breeds as bull or pug dogs do to other dogs, 
or as improved pigs, according to Nathusius, do to other 
pigs. Rutimeyer believes that these cattle belong to the pri- 
mogenius type. The forehead is very short and broad, with 
the nasal end of the skull, together v^^ith the whole plane 
of the upper molar teeth, curved upward. The lower 
jaw projects beyond the upper, and has a corresponding 
upward curvature. . . . The* upper lip is widely 
open, the eyes project outward, and the horns are large. 
In walking, the head is carried low, and the neck, is short. 
The hind legs appear to be larger, compared with the 
front legs, than is usual. The exposed incisor teeth, the 
short head and upturned nostrils, give these cattle the 
most ludicrous, self-confident air of defiance." * 

Dr. Bachman,! having quoted Darwin's account of this 
variety, makes the following pertinent remarks : — 

"We have here another example in evidence of the fact that, 
without the slightest intermixture of foreign varieties, new 
breeds of cattle spring up in America. They made their first 
appearance about eighty years ago, when one was occasionally 
brought to Buenos Ayres. Now they have become the only 
race in an immense region of country where they are nearly 
wild. What causes have operated to produce this variety.? 
There are no wild animals, not even the buffalo, in that country, 
from which any admixture could by any possibility have been 
derived. Were we not positive of their origin, they would 
unquestionably be regarded as a new species." 

These facts, related by naturalists, — many more simi- 
lar ones might be cited, — are suflicicnt for our purpose. 

* Darwin, Variations of Animals and Plants, i. p. 113. 
t Unity of the Human Race, p. 305-6. 



406 APPENDIX, K. 

But without resorting to extreme cases for illustrations, It 
would be perfectly legitimate to refer to the common 
varieties of cattle found in any country, — e. g., England, — 
the " Durhams," the " Herefords," the " Highland cattle," 
the " Alderneys," the " Short Horns," the " Long Horns," 
etc., etc. ; for we find varieties arising in the same stock * 
as marked and apparently distinct as are found in the 
human race. There are cattle without horns, with one 
horn, with short horns, with long horns,! with straight 
horns, and crooked horns, with pendent horns and verti- 
cal horns, and of all possible colors ; with long legs, and 
short legs ; with crania wide and short, and long and 
narrow ; — exhibiting among themselves a far greater dif- 
ference than is seen among the crania of the most dissimi- 
lar of the human races. 

4. Horses. 

The following is from Darwin : — 

"Whether the whole amount of difference between the vari- 
ous breeds be due to variation, is doubtful. From the fertility 
of the most distinct breeds when crossed, naturalists have gen- 
erally looked at all breeds as having descended from a single 
species. Few will agree with Colonel H. Smith, who believes that 
they have descended from no less than, five primitive and differ- 
ently colored stocks. But as several species and varieties of the 
horse existed during the later tertiary periods, and, as Rutimeyer 

* There are enumerated "19 British breeds" of cattle, and 
'* in the most recent work on cattle, engravings are given of 55 
European breeds." (Moll and Gayot, " La Connaissance Gen. 
du Boeuf," Paris, i860; Darwin, Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 103.) 

t Darwin mentions a specimen 8 feet 8| inches from tip to tip, 
and 13 feet 5 inches as measured on the curve. — Variations, etc., 
vol. i. p. no. 



VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 407 

found differences in the size and form of the skull in the earliest 
known domesticated horses, we ought not to feel sure that all 
our breeds have descended from a single species." * 

But, admitting the opinion of Colonel Hamilton Sn>ith as 
correct, — it is only an opinion, — the facts furnished by 
Darwin himself, in regard to modifications in the same 
breed from change of climate and other influences, prove 
that the varieties in mankind may be accounted for without 
resort to the supposition of a plural origin. 

"There can be no doubt," says Darwin, " that hors^ become 
greatly reduced in size, and altered in appearance, by living on 
mountains and islands. . . . There were, or still are, on 
some of the islands on the coast of Virginia, ponies like those 
of the Shetland Islands, which are believed to have originated 
through exposure to unfavorable conditions. The Puno ponies, 
which inhabit the lofty regions of the Cordilleras, are, as I hear 
from Mr. D. Forbes, strange little creatures, very unlike their 
Spanish progenitors." f 

"The horses, according to M. Roulin, transported to South 
America, have formed a race with fur instead of hair, and have 
changed to an almost uniform bay color." | 

5. Dogs. 

The varieties found among dogs are probably greater 
and more marked than are known to exist in any other 
species of animals. There is the St. Bernard dog of the 
Alps and Mont Blanc, the Newfoundland dog, the bull dog, 
the " twelve kinds of greyhounds," § and all the way 
down through the spaniels, terriers, turnspits, pugs, etc., 

* Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 68. 

t Ibid., vol. i. p. 69. X Brace, p. 457. 

§ Youatt, quoted by Darwin (Variations, etc., p. 49). 



408 APPENDIX, K. 

to the lap-dog, — all forming an immense variety, in 
which Cuvier admits " that in form the differences are 
greater than those of any wild species of any natural 
genus." — Darwin^ F'^r., etc., p. 49. 

We might admit all that any naturalist has imagined — 
no one has proved anything — in regard to a plural origin 
of the varieties of dogs, e. g., that they are derived from 
three, four, five, or six primordial stocks, as the wolf^ the 
jackal^ the anthus^ the dingo^ the cf hole^ or thus^ etc., 
etc., to the numt)er of some six or seven.* For Darwin 
(Variations, etc., i. p. 48) well remarks, " But we can 
not explain by crossing the origin of such extreme forms 
as thorough-bred greyhounds, bloodhounds, bull dogs, 
Blenheim spaniels, terriers, pugs, &c., unless we believe 
that forms equally or more strongly characterized in 
these different respects once existed in nature. But 
hardly any one has been bold enough to suppose that 
such unnatural forms ever did or could exist in a wild 
state." 

The obvious truth of these remarks makes the illustra- 
tions drawn from the varieties of dogs perfectly conclu- 
sive. 

6. Fowls. 

I must not omit to mention the great and marked varie- 

* As Colonel Hamilton Smith, cited by Dr. Bachman, " Unity, 
&c.," p. 61, from Dr. Morton. 

But the writer of the article Man, in the Cyclopaedia of Natu- 
ral History, states, " No one . . . will be inclined to deny 
that the varieties of dogs (which, according to Professor Owen, 
are undoubtedly of one species) present far greater differences in 
form and color, and in some parts of their habits and instincts, 
than any that are observed in man." — p. 667. 



VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 4O9 

ties that are found among our domestic barn-yard fowls — 
the more especially since there seems to be little if any 
doubt that all of them are descended from a single origi- 
nal stock.* And yet how great the difference among the 
numerous breeds. Darwin enumerates thirteen distinct 
breeds, and a number of sub-breeds, among which we 
have the " diminutive elegant Bantam, the heavy Cochin 
(Shanghai), with its many peculiarities, and the Polish 
fowl, with its great top-knot and protuberant skull," the 
Dorking, with an additional toe, etc. There are rumpless 
fowls and tailless fowls ; single-crested and double-crested, 
and those without crests ; frizzled fowls, and silk fowls, 
and sooty fowls ; creepers, or jumpers, with legs so short 
" that they move by jumping rather than by walking " 
(Darwin) ; and those with legs so long that they can feed 
from the top of a barrel ; and with plumage of all varieties 
of colors — black, white, yellow, mottled, mixed, etc., etc. 
The time and place of the origin of some of these breeds 
are well known, and the single origin of the whole not 
doubted, or scarcely so, by naturalists generally. The 
analogical argument from the great varieties among 
domestic fowls is well nigh conclusive in favor of the 
single origin of all the varieties of mankind ; i. e., it com- 
pletely sets aside the main argument for a plural origin, 

* " Most naturahsts, with the exception of Temminck, believe 
that all the breeds have proceeded from a single species." (Dar- 
win, Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 280.) This author does not think 
that the evidence of the single origin of all the breeds of domes- 
tic fowls from a single original species is so conclusive as that 
for the single origin of the pigeon. But he seems to have 
little or no doubt of the single origin. That original stock way 
the Galla Bankiva. 



4IO 

which is based on variety of color and some differences 
in physical structure among men. 

7. Pigeons. 

I will allude to only one more case of great variation 
among the lower animals for illustration — that of the 
domestic pigeon ; and these illustrations are the more val- 
uable " because the evidence that all the domestic races 
have descended from one known source is far clearer 
than with any other anciently domestic animal," . . . 
and because "from causes which we can partly under- 
stand, the amount of variation has been extraordinarily 
great." * 

The original species, as Darwin thinks, is the wild rock 
pigeon i^Columba livia). Some authors describe 150 
kinds. — jDarwin^Var,^ etc., i. 164. 

" I have no doubt," says Darwin, " that there exist 
considerably above 150 kinds, which breed true, and have 
been separately named. — Variations^ etc., i. 165. 

Detail is here unnecessary. It is sufficient merely to 
name a few of the varieties described by Darwin, and 
other authors — as the f outer ^ the carrier^ the runt^ the 
barb^ theyantail^ the African owl^ the short-faced tum- 
bler^ the Indian frill back^ the trumpeter, etc. The 
osteological variations are great ; for examples of extremes 
in the form of the beak and skull, compare the shortfaced 

* Darwin, Variations, etc., vol. i. p. 163. A few lines after, 
Darwin says, " Notwithstanding the clear evidence that all the 
breeds are the descendants of a single species, I could not per- 
suade myself, until some years had passed, that the whole 
amount of difference between them had arisen since man first 
domesticated the wild rock pigeon." 



VARIATIONS IN SPECIES AMONG ANIMALS. 4 II 

tumbler with the Eiiglish carrier. The variations in 
the forms of the skull are far greater than are exhibited 
in the most dissimilar varieties of the human race. 

The argument for the unity of the human race, based 
on analogy from the lower animals, is attempted to be set 
aside by the allegation that it is only among domestic a7zi- 
mals that these variations take place. It is doinestication 
that produces the change. Man is not a domestic ani- 
mal ; therefore the analogy fails.* Now, what are the facts 
in the case? Why, simply these : Man is a cosmopolite ; 
his constitution — mental and physical — is such that he 
can go everywhere, and live in every climate, and in the 
most diverse conditions. Under the influence of these 
various climatic conditions of heat and cold, of modes of 
living, etc., etc., changes take place, and he assumes the 
various physical types which exist. But he takes the 
so-called domestic animals with him, which, in the various 
changed conditions, in the same manner become changed, 
and assume the various types which we see. This is all. 
The analogy is perfect. Writers seem to think that 
domestication is a power in itself to produce change of 
type. Whereas the simple truth is, the animals follow- 
ing man necessarily, in the same manner with him, come 
under the influence of the various climates, conditions, 
habits of living, etc., etc., and the result is change of type. 
The reason why wild animals generally preserve such a 
uniformity of type is because they have a comparatively 

♦ Pouchet, Plurality of the Human Race, pp. 83, 84. And so 
with polygenists generally. 



412 



APPENDIX, L. 



limited range. There are a few, however, as the wolf, 
the bear, and some others, which have a wider range, 
and consequently exhibit greater varieties. The principle 
here stated, and the facts dependent upon it, have not, as 
I think, received a proper attention from naturalists. 



L. Page 280. 

VISIT OF DIONUSOS TO INDIA. 

DiODORUS, in his brief account of India, relates some 
traditions of the Indians in regard to 4:he expedition of 
Dionusos to their country. The following extract is of 
particular importance, as showing that Mt. Meru was the 
traditional Ararat of the Mosaic narrative, it being kept in 
mind that Dionusos (the same as Bacchus of the Romans, 
and Osiris of the Egyptians) was the traditional Noah. 
Of this there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Diodo- 
rus (i. 13) says distinctly that Osiris means Dionusos^ as 
do others ; and the accounts that are given of this deity, 
as elsewhere stated, leave no room to doubt that he . is 
Noah deified. 

"And here it is proper to relate what the most learned among 
the Indians say respecting these things. 

"They say that when the people still dwelt in villages, Dionu- 
sos came from the west with a powerful army, passing through 
all India, there being no city that could resist his power; that on 
account of the great heat, his army began to perish with a pesti- 
lential disease; but he, as a skillful commander, withdrew his 
army from the plains to the mountainous regions. There, from 



CHINESE THEOLOGY. 413 

the influence of the cool breezes and pure water flowing from the 
fountains, the plague was stayed. The place where Dionusos 
thus saved his armj from the plague was called Meros. Hence 
the Greeks have a tradition respecting Dionusos, that he was 
nourished in the thigh (fiuiQog).* In addition to these things, 
he imparted to the Indians a knowledge of the cultivation of 
fruits, and gave them the invention of the wine, and other things 
useful to life. He founded cities and villages in health}'- places, 
taught the people to worship the gods, and gave them laws. He 
established justice among them, and by his favors merited the 
appellation of a deity, and obtained divine honors. They add 
that a great number of women accompanied his army, 
i^nd that at last he died an old man, having reigned over all 
India fifty-two years." (Died. ii. xxvii.) 



I\J[. Page 280. 

CHINESE THEOLOGY. 

• The following extracts from an able article, entitled 
" The Chinese on the Plains of Shinar, or a Connection 
established between the Chinese and all other Nations, 
through their Theology," by the Rev. T. M'Clatchie, 
M. A., missionary to the Chinese from the Church Mis- 

* ''Zeus, or, according to others, Hermes (Apollon. Rhod. iv. 
1 137), saved the child (Dionusos) from the flames. It was sewed 
up in the thigh of Zeus, and thus came to maturity." — Smi'i/t's 
pict.^ article Dionusos, p. 1046.) 

The coincidence in, or rather the sameness of, the name of the 
place where Dionusos saved his army, with that of the famous 
sacred mountain of the Hindus, Meru, is truly remarkable. 



414 APPENDIX, M. 

sionary Society,* are directly to my purpose, as connecting 
the Chinese in their origin with other nations, especially 
with the Hindus. 

In his prefatory remarks, the author makes the two fol- 
lowing general declarations : " i. The chief god of every 
pagan system, without exception, is designated ' Mind ' 
(iVbvg, or Mens) ; 2. This chief god, whose body is the 
universe, triplicates^ and also divides into eight portions 
in each system." — p. 369. 

He then gives numerous extracts from various Chinese 
writers, and the Greek and Roman classics, showing the 
resemblances between the theology of the Chinese and 
that of other nations. These resemblances are perhaps 
sometimes a little fanciful, while they are often striking 
and convincing, especially in reference to the Triads and 
Ogdoads, And in the doctrine of Shang-ti, — Deity, the 
Soul of the World, and Mind, — there is a remarkable 
identity with the pantheism of the Hindus and more 
western nations of antiquity. The author claims for the 
outlines of these doctrines a common origin on the plain 
of Shinar, before the ancestors of these nations separated 
from each other, after the confusion of tongues. 

The following sentences indicate remarkable coinci- 
dences : — 

" The first man was Pwan-kou. . . .^ 

" Thus we have in this family of the first man (Pwan-kou, and 
liis hermaphrodite successors) in reality eight persons, viz., 
Pwan-kou, or Shang-ti, or Mind, the Great Father, his wife, three 
s ons, and their three wives ; and these eight individuals issue 

* In the Jovirnal of the P-o^^al As. Soc. of Great Britain and 
Ireland, vol. xvi. pp. 368-435.) 



CHINESE THEOLOGY. 415 

forth from chaos, or the ovutn mundt\ and correspond to the 
prominent characters in the family of Adam. 

" Shang-ti is also Fuh-hi. 

"It is plain, from what has been already stated, that the first 
man in his human form is in reality but a reappearance of a 
former first man, viz., animated Chaos; and between' these two 
individuals intervenes a universal deluge, from which the second 
first man (if I may so designate him) escapes. Now, this first 
man, who escapes the deluge, and reappears at the commence- 
ment of each new world, is Fuh-hi, e. g. : — 

" ' Fuh-hi is the first (who appears) at each opening and 
spreading out (of the universe.)' — Stng-le, etc., xxvi. 19.)" 

" This 'Fuh-hi, who is but a reappearance of Pwan-kou, or 
Adam, escapes from the deluge with seven companions, and 
hence, in this material system of the universe, is not only divided 
into three, but also into eight. 

" Here we have a family of eight persons, who issue from the 
sacred circle, viz., Shang-ti, or Fuh-hi, his wife, and their six 
children. These ' six children ' we find, on reference to the Yih- 
king, vol. xii. chap. xvii. p. 18, are three sons and three daugh- 
ters ; and these brothers, uniting in marriage with their three 
sisters, complete the universe. 

"In this Fuh-hi and his family, then, we have the prominent 
characters in Noah's family, who escaped from a general deluge, 
which destroyed the rest of the human race. 

" By the constant succession of similar worlds, the two periods 
of the world's history, viz.. Chaos (or creation) and the deluge 
are blended together, and consequently the families of Pwan-kou 
(or Adam) and Fuh-hi (or Noah) are also blended together, the 
latter being merely a reappearance of the former. . . . (ii.9.) 

" As the deluge occupies so prominent a position in Chinese 
cosmogony, the first man, or Shang-ti, is rather Fuh-hi than 
Pwan-kou ; yet it is plain that the former is only a reappearance 
of the latter, or, in other words, the Chinese classical Shang-ti 
is the same being as the ' Great Father,' worshiped by the whole 



4l6 APPENDIX, M. 

* 
pagan world, under the diflferent designations of Jupiter, Baal, 
Osiris, Brahm, &c., Adam reaj)pearing in Noah. 

" The above system of theology will be found, on examination, 
to correspond with remarkable accuracy to the general system 
adopted by the subjects of Nimrod's kingdom before their dis- 
persion, and which was afterward carried by them into the 
various countries where they settled. 

"TheYih-king is the Chinese authority on cosmogony, and 
the doctrines of the Chinese philosophers are derived from this 
source. The doctrine of the endless succession of worlds, as 
drawn from ancient classics, by Choo-foo-tsze (ii. i), has striking 
points of resemblance to that taught by the Stoics. Choo-tsye 
attributes the destruction of each universe to the degeneracy of 
the human race, and also states that each return to chaos is 
caused by a general deluge. 

"These rounds of nature are designated 'Great Revolutions,' 
or ' Years ' of the world. The circle in which the universe is 
supposed to revolve is divided into twelve portions. — pp. 404, 

405- 

" Each complete revolution of this circle is called a Yuen, and 
each subdivision a Hivuy. A Hwuy is generally supposed to 
consist of 10,800 years. On this point, however, philosophers 
differ. In the first Hwuy, which answers to the Fuh diagram of 
the Yih-king, Heaven (Shang-ti) emerges from the ovum mundi, 
or chaos ; in the second. Earth ; in the third, Man — each world 
commencing with this triad. The deluge prevails during the 
twelfth and last Hwuy, — that is, the ninth period from the 
formation of the first man,* — and on the return to the first 

* Or the tenth, including the period of the first man. Noah 
was the tenth generation from the first, or Adam ; and can there 
be a reasonable doubt but that the name mentioned in the next 
sentence of the inventor of the cycle of sixty is that of the patri- 
arch of the Hebrew Scriptures } Let it be noted how the word 
Tuen resembles the Greek Alwv, to which it corresponds in 
meaning. 



THE CELTS IN EUROPE. 417 

Hwuy, the universe is again generated from chaos, as before. 
The cycle, which is formed bj the combination of this circle with 
another often divisions, is said to have been invented by 'Naou 
the Great,' after the deluge. — See Kae-peih-yeu-e, vol. i. pp. i, 
2; also Kang-keen, etc., p. 11." 



IV. Page 324. 

THE CELTS IN EUROPE. 

The following remarks of the translator of Dr. Keller's 
work are worthy of notice ; — 

"With respect to the name and ethnographical determination 
of the people who lived partly in lake dwellings and partly on 
the main land, and who at first made use of stone implements, 
and consequently are considered as aborigines, any one who has 
a fancy may object to their having any relationship with the 
Celtic element, and attribute to them a Finnish or Iberian origin, 
or connect them with the race of men discovered by Boucher de 
Perthes. Thus far it is certain that they do not differ in the 
smallest degree, either in their abilities, their manner of life, or 
their industrial attainments, from the people who were provided 
with metals, but that in the whole phenomena of lake dwellings, 
from their very beginning to the end of their existence, a grad- 
ual, quiet, peaceful development may be observed. * 

" From what has been said, it appears certain that there is no 
foundation for the hypothesis .that the inhabitants of the lake 
dwellings are to be separated into distinct races, because, in the 
earliest times, they had no metal instruments, and in later times 
they possessed them. Nothing can be more true than the remark 
of Lindenschmidt respecting such suppositions as to the change 
of nationalities, based simply on a difference in implenients. 
'The simple exchange of material,' he says, ' the transition from 

27 



41 8 APPENDIX, N. 

the use of stone to that of metal, is in itself not a sufficient 
ground for inferring a change of population. It is not so im- 
portant as the change of the spear to fire-arms, and if, at every 
advance of this kind, an entire change of population were to be 
supposed, the history of civilization would only have to relate 
the migrations of nations.' * 

'^ With respect to the immigration of the Celts into Europe, 
this event belongs to the primitive history of the peopling of our 
part of the world, and is shrouded in impenetrable darkness. 
No tradition speaks of the Celts pressing forward toward the 
countries in the possession of which we subsequently find them ; 
though the Druids, on the other hand, taught that the Gauls 
were aborigines. At the very first appearance of historical nar- 
rative,! they appear in the far west of the Iberian peninsula, and 
afterward as the first among the great northern nations which 
pressed forward eastward from their homes in the west." — p. 398. 

* Lindenschmidt, Die Vaterlandischen Alterthumer, p. 159. 
t Herodotus, iii. 33 ; iv. 49. 



INDEX. 



Abraham, date of, 25. 

Aborigines, 152; of Egypt, 158; of In- 
dia, 16:^ ; of Western Europe, 166, 320. 

Abu-Mashar, 45. 

Abydenus, 92. 

Abydos, 92. 

Adamite race. 154. 

.^tna, lava of, 313. 

Africanus, 54, 68, 77, 78. 

Agassiz, his views, 172; discussion 
with Bachman and Smyth, 172; his 
Natural Provinces, 173, 175, 183; on 
unity of species, 177; estimate of his 
theory, 179; plural origin of man ex- 
ceptional, 205. 

Agglutinative languages, 222. 

Alpa Camasca, 240. 

American Fauna, peculiar, 204. 

Amiot, 123, 124. 

Anamim, 160. 

Anianus, 55, 96. 

Antediluvian generations, 33 ; myth 
of, 277. 

Antesemitio period, 156. 

Antiquities of Egypt, 49. 

Apamea, 249. 

ApoUodorus, 55, 74; Bunsen's testi- 
mony of, 75. 

Arabic languages, 217. 

Aram, 171. 

Aramaic languages, 217. 

Ark, myths of the, 281. 

Armenian version of Eusobius, 69. 

Arphaxad, 147. 

Aryan languages, 215. 

Ashkenaz, 148. 

Asiatic Society at Calcutta, 213. 

Astronomical inscriptions in Egypt, 
61. 



Astronomy of the Chinese, 130. 
Asshur, Assyrians, 146. 
Augustus, name on the zodiacs, 64. 
Autochthons, 153. 
Avatar as, 254. 

Bachman's discussion with Agassiz, 
172; his doctrine of unity, 184, 187; 
on monumental figures of animals, 
200; on the single origin of species, 
204. 

Beaumont, de, on Somme valley, 317. 

Berosus, 92, 94. 

Biot, M., 66. 

Birch, Dr. S., 57. 

Boeckh, 71 ; his chronological sys- 
tem, 25. 

Bone fossil near Natchez, 293. 

Book of the dead, 57. 

Bopp's comparative grammar, 214. 

Borings in the Nile valley, 287. 

Brahma, legend of, 241. 

Brasen-nose College 265. 

Brick in Nile valley, 288, 293. 

Brugsch's chronology, 66, 71. 

Bryant on mythology, 266. 

Bundehesh, the book, 245. 

Bunsen's chronology 24; his sneer, 
59 ; identifies one hundred and ten 
Egyptian kings, 79. 

Cabiri, myths of the, 283. 
Cain and his wife, 171, 180. 
Cainan, .;;"), 44. 
Calepin ol Kgypt, 67. 
Calippus, i)iTiod of, 134. 
Callisthenes, 92, 101. 
Canaan, 151. 
Canon of Ptolemy, 40. 

419 



420 



INDEX. 



Caphtorim, 151, 160. 

Casluhim, 160. 

Castes in India, 242. 

Castor, 55. 

Chaldean chronology, 91; tradition 
of the deluge, 250. 

Chalmers on Chinese astronomy, 
130. 

Champollion, 64. 

Changes in races, 196 j in languages, 
229. 

Charles X., 63. 

Chinese astronomy, 130 ; characters, 
131; chronology, 120, 133; language, 
220; traditions of the flood, 252; year, 
126. 

Chronology of the Scriptures, 31 ; of 
antediluvian generations, 33 : from 
flood to Abraham, 34 ; Abraham to 
exodus, 35; exodus to the temple, 
36; temple to birth of Christ, 40. 

Chronology of Chaldeans, 91; of 
Chinese, 120; of Egyptians, 48; of 
Greece and Rome, 85. 

Chronological systems, 24 ; of Bun- 
sen, 24; of Bo6ckh, 25; of Rodier, 
27. 

Cimbri, Cimmerians, 148. 

Claims of modern science, 23. 

Clemens Alexandrinus, 50. 

Clinton on O. T. chronology, 37. 

Comparison of Hebrew and Septua- 
gint, 23. 

Confucius, author of Shu-king, 137. 

Confusion of tongues, 224. 

Copts, 151, 160. 

Coxcox, legend of, 246. 

Creation, date of, 25 ; myths of, 275. 

Curse of Ham, 174. 

Cush and his family, 150. 

Cycle of sixty years, 122, 126, 129. 

Cynocephali, myth of the, 269. 

Dana, on unity of species, 186; on 
hybrids, 187; definition of species, 
193 ; single origin of species, 203. 

Dasyas, 164. 

Date of creation, 25, 44 ; of the flood, 
25; of Menes, 25, 26; of Abraham, 



25; of the exodus, 25; of earliest 
monumental record, 49. 

Dates, Egyptian chronology with- 
out, 67. 

Deluge, traditions of, 246, Mexican 
and Peruvian, 246 ; of Ogyges, 247 ; of 
Deucalion, 248 ; myths of, 279. 

Demetrius Phalereus, 46. 

Demetrius Soter, 46. 

Demigods, reign of, 60. 

Denderah, zodiac of, 61. 

Deucalion and Pyrrha, 249. 

Diodorus Siculus, 50, 51, 52. 

Diogenes Laertius, 52. 

Discrepancies in Egyptian annals, 
56. 

Diversities in races superficial, 183. 

Dodanim, 149. 

Domestic animals, changes in, 202. 

Dove, myths of the, 282. 

Duns, on the growth of peat, 313. 

Dupuis, 65. 

Dynasties of Egypt, 69. 

Dynasties, contemporaneous, 82. 

Dyacks, traditions of creation, 240. 

Earlier and later departures from the 
primitive seats, 155. 

Egyptian history, 48; books, 50; abo- 
rigines, 158; language, 161; tradition 
of flood, 253. 

Egyptians, physical features of, 150. 

Elam, Elamites, 146. 

Elishah, 149. 

Era of the Trojan war, 88. 

Eratosthenes, 74; director of AJex- 
andrian library, 76; Bunsen's testi- 
mony of, 75 ; his date of Trojan 
war, 88. 

Ethnology, argument from, 144. 

Ethiopian can change his skin, 199. 

Eudoxus, 58. 

Eiipolemus, 46. 

Eusebius, 53, 59, 68, 78. 

Exodus, date of, 25, 36. 

Feridun and his sons, 284. 
F ' mt implements, 304, 315. 
Forgery of early annals, 61. 



INDEX. 



421 



Fossil bono near Natchez, 293 ; skele- 
ton near New Orlefins, 2'J5; skele- 
ton on Florida coast, 300. 

Fossils in valley of the Somme, 301; 
not contemporaneous, 304. 

Fuh-hi, 122. 

Garden of Eden, tradition of, 243. 

Qaubil, 119. 

Gayati^ 111. 

Genesis consistent with geology, 20; 

tenth chapter of, 145. 
Geology, argument from, 286. 
Greek and Roman chronology, 85. 
Greek mind practical, 51, 86. 
Greek writers on Egypt, 50 ; on 

mythology, 266. 
Godron on difference in races, 184. 
Gods, kings of Egypt, 56. 
Gomer, 148. 
Gutzlaff, 121. 

Hale's dates, 42. 

Ham, early name of Egypt, 159; curse 

of, 174 ; his family, 149. 
Hamitic languages, 217, 228. 
Havilah, 150. 

Hebrides, growth of peat in, 313. 
Hebrew once thought the original 

language, 209. 
Hercules, 53. 
Herodotus, 51, 5.3, 71 ; date of Trojan 

war, 88. 
Hesperides, garden of, 243. 
Hieroglyphics, key to, 49. 
Hindus, character of, 107; compared 

with Greeks, 109. 
Hindu traditions of creation, 240 ; of 

the flood, 254. 
Historic times in Egypt, 67. 
History, argument from, 48. 
Hitchcock on date of creation, 20; 

on growth of peat, 312. 
Hoang-ti, 122. 

Hybrids, fertile and infertile, 187. 
Hyksos, 79. 

Inachus, 89. 

Indian aborigines, 163. 



Indo-European languages, 216. 
Infidel rejoicing, 63. 
Inflectional languages, 223. 
Institutes of Menu, 105. 
Irej, 218, 284. 

Irish, changes in features of, 196. 
lyotisha, 115. 

Jablonski on traditions, 238. 
Jackson's dates, 42 ; on the word 

yomim, Q7. 
Japheth and his family, 147. 
Javan and his family, 119. 
Jesuit missionaries in China, 118. 
Jews, change in features of, 197. 
Joktan, 147. 
Jones, Sir W., 104, 213. 
Josephus, the Greek Livy, 77 ; 

against Apion, 77; citation of Mane- 

tho, 78. 

Kali-Yug, 46. 

Keller on Swiss lake remains, .322. 

Khamism, 228. 

Kittim, 149. 

Kjokken-modding, 320. 

Lake settlements in Switzerland, 320. 

Language, argument from, 209. 

Languages, classification of, 215; Ar- 
yan, 215; Semitic, 216; Hamltic,217; 
Turanian, 218 ; monosyllabic, 222 ; 
agglutinative, 222; inflectional, 223; 
confusion of, 224; have much in com- 
mon, 226 ; approximate as better 
known, 227; rapid changes in, 227. 

La Peyrore, 170. 

Latham, 96, 198. 

Legge's Chinese classics, 120 ; on the 
Cliinese year, 127, 132. 

Lehabim, 160. 

Lenormant on date of Mcncs, 71 ; on 
prehistoric arclijcology, 22. 

Lepsius, 66,77; identifies one hun- 
dred and ten kings of Egypt, 79. 

Letronne, M. 

Lewis on Chaldean antiquities, 99. 

Lists of Manetho, 69. * 

Literary remains of Egjrpt, 50. 



422 



INDEX. 



liUd, Ludim, 147, 150, 159. 
Lunar years in Eg-ypt, 59, 60. 
Lyell's geological evidences, 289; on 

the date of creation, 21. 
Lydians, 147. 

Ma, the Egyptian period, 28. 

Madai, 149. 

Magog, 148. 

Mahabliarata, 105, 254. 

Makrizi, on changes in the Nile val- 
ley, 291. 

Manes, kings of Egypt, 56. 

Manetho, 54 ; his history, 68 ; his 
lists of dynasties, 69 ; his authorities 
unknown, 71; his lists Corrupt, 71; 
different versions of, 72; internal 
evidence against them, 72; contra- 
dicted by the old chronicle, 73; by 
Eratosthenes, 74 : by Josephus, 77; 
by the monuments, 79. 

Mantchus, features of, changed, 198. 

Manu, legend of, 255. 

Manuscripts of the Septuagint, .32. 

Mariette, on the dynasties, 82. 

Measures of time among Chaldeans, 
95. 

Medes, 149. 

Median kings, 98. 

Megasthenes, 45. 

Menes, mythological, 52; first king 
of Egypt, 67 ; date of, 70, 71. 

Meshech, 149. 

Methuselah's age, 34. 

Metonic cycle, 129. 

Mexican tradition of the flood, 246. 

Milraan's version of Manu, 255. 

Mississippi, delta of, 297. 

Mizraim, 150; early name of Egypt, 
159. 

Monboddo*s speculations on lan- 
guage, 211. 

Monosyllabic languages, 222. 

Months, reckoned as years, 58. 

Monuments, against Manetho, 79. 

Monumental figures of animals, 200. 

Monumental records of Egypt, 49. 

Moral chai-acteristics of men, 207. 

Moral relations of men, 207. 



Mount Olympus, myth ol, 207. 

Miiller, 109 ; on date of the Vedas, 
114; on changes in language, 231 ; 
on unity of languages, 233. 

Mythology, argument from, 261 : the 
Roman, 271 ; Greek, 271 : Egyptian, 
271 ; Phoenician and Chaldean, 272 ; 
Hindu, 272. 

Mythologies have a common origin, 
270; in Bible events, 274. ^ 

Myths founded on fact, 262 ; modern 
examples of, 264; of Mount 01ym« 
pus, 267 ; of the Omphalus, 268 ; of 
the Cynocephali, 269 ; of creation, 
275; of the fall, 276; of the antedi- 
luvian generations, 277; of the flood, 
279; of Noah, 279; of the dove, 282; 
of the Cabiri, 283 ; of the ark, 281. 

Naphtuhim, 159. 

Natchez, fossil near, 293. 

Nau (or Nao) the great, 137. 

IQ"ew Orleans, skeleton, 295. 

Nile, flowing with honey, 72 ; bor- 
ings in the valley, 287; annual in- 
crease of sediment, 289; changes in 
the bed of, 291. 

Nimrod, 146, 150. 

Nineveh, 146, 150. 

Noah and his family, 146; myths of, 
279. 

Nott and Gliddon's types, 173 ; history 
of man, 173. 

Oa, Oanes, 283. 

Ogyges, deluge of, 247. 

Old Chronicle, 53, 59, 73. 

Olympiad, the first, date of, 86. 

Omphalos, myth of, 206. 

Orpheus, 51. 

Osborn on contemporaneous dynas- 
ties, 82; on Egyptian language, 161. 

Owen on difference in races, 185; on 
changes in features of the Jews, 197. 

Palmer's chronicles, 57. 

Pandora, myth of, 244. 

Pankou, 121; same as Hindu Manu, 

121. 



INDEX. 



423 



Pandorus, 55. 

Papyrus rolls, 49. 

Parian marble, 88. 

Pathrusim, 159. 

Pauthier's History of China, 120; 

view ofCliiucse o.hrouolog^y, 124. 
Peat iu Somme valley, 300 ; its rate of 

growth, 312. 
Peruvian tradition of the flood, 246. 
Petaviiis's dates, 42. 
Phut, 151. 

Physiology, argnmeni from, 1G9. 
Plurality of race, advocates of, 170. 
Plutarch, 51. 
Polydorus, 96. 
Polyhistor, 92, 94. 
Pomponius Mela, 53. 
Poole's dates, 42. 
Portuguese in India, 197. 
Prehistoric arcliajology, 22 ; times in 

Egypt, 52; period, how reckoned, 57; 

races, 158. 
Professor, in University of Breslau, 

G'. 
Prometheus, legend of, 239. 
Protestant missionaries in China, 120. 
Ptolemy Physcon, 46. 
Ptolemy's canon, 40. 
Pxiranas, 104. 

Quatrefages on La Peyr^re, 171 ; on 

slavery, 173. 
Quietists in geology, 311. 

Baamah, 150. 

Races of men, 183. 

Eamayana, 105. 

Rawlinson, Sir H., 156. 

Reads on the negro, 198. 

Riphath, Kiphaean mountains, 148. 

Bock temples of India, 163. 

Rodier's chronology, 27, 71. 

Rogers on new discoveries in geolo- 
gy, 22; on contemporaneousness of 
fossils, 305, 307, 318. 

Rome, time of its foundation uncer- 
tain, 89; three theories, 89. 

Bosetta stone, 49. 

Rousseau, 172. 



Sabtah, 150. 

Sabtechah, 150. 

Sacred words of the Hindus, 111. 

Samaritan version of the Penta- 
teuch, 32. 

Sanskrit, discovery of, 103, 210 ; con- 
tains no history, 106; estimate of its 
value, 106 ; scholars, 213 ; key to 
classification of languages, 214. 

Saros, a measure of time, 95, 99. 

Satya Yuga, 28. 

Schlegel's work on Sanskrit, 214. 

Scripture chronology, 31; language 
not always literal, 153. 

Scyths, migrations of, 156. 

Seasons in Egypt, 58. 

Seba, 150. 

Sebennytus, 68. 

Selim, 284. 

Semitic languages, 216. 

Septuagint version, 32. 

Sexagenary cycle in China, 122, 126, 
129. 

Shem and his family, 146. 

Shepherd kings in Egypt, 79. 

Shishak, 80. 

Shu-king, 130; ascribed to Confucius, 
137; how mutilated, 139; burning of, 
139; how recovered, 140. 

Simeto, wearing of the bed of, 313. 

Skeleton, near New Orleans, 295. 

Smith, Philip, date of destruction of 
temple, 41 ; on the Sarus, 99. 

Smyth's discussion with Agassiz, 
172; on primitive traditions, 236. 

Somme valley. 301 ; history of chan- 
ges iu, .308. 

Species, unity of, 183. 

Stobart's tablets, 65. 

Stewart, Dugald, 210. 

Syncellus, 53, 08, 74, 77, 78. 

Tablet of Abydos, 80. 
Tablets, Egyptian, 65. 
Tahitian tradition of creation, 210. 
Tarshish, 149. 
Temple, dale of, .36, 38. 
Temptation and fall, tradition of, 
241; myth of, 276. 



424 



INDEX, 



Tentyris, 160. 

Theology, opposed to plurality, 206. 

Thompson, J. P., 65. 

Tiras, 149. 

Togarmah, 148. 

Tradition, argument from, 235. 

Traditions of primitive times, 236; 
of one god, 238 ; of the creation, 209; 
of Eden, 243 ; of the fall, 244 ; of the 
Sabbath, 245; of the flood, 246. 

Treta-Yuga, 28. 

Trevor, Canon, on the dynasties, 79. 

Trojan war mythical, 87 ; date of, 88. 

Troy, siege of, 88. 

Troyon on Swiss lake remains, 324. 

Tubal, 149. 

Turanian language, 215. 

Uniformitarians, 311. 
Upangas, 105. 
Upavedas, 105. 
Usher's dates, 42. 
Uz, 147. 

Vedas, 104; origin of date of, 112; 
teach one God, 239. 



Vedangas, 105. 

Versions of the Pentateuch, 32. 

Voltaire, 172. 

V7eeks, time divided into, 245 ; days 
of, 245. 

Whitney on date of the Vedas, 113; 
on changes in races, 196 ; on classifi- 
cation of languages, 221 ; on unity of 
languages, 227, 234. 

Wilkinson on lunar years, 59. 

Williams on Chinese chronology, 
121, 126; on the Shu-king, 137. 

Wilson on the Somme valley, 316. 

Xisuthrus, 94, 250. 

Years in Egypt, lunar, 58 ; in China, 

126, 127. 
Yu the Great, 136. 

Zodiac of Denderah, 61. 
Zodiacs, of Greek prigin, 65. 



APPENDIX 



A. Chronology of Bunsen, 327. 

B. Chronology of Boeckh, 348. 

C. Chronology of Rodier, 349. 

D. Manetho, 357. 

E. Manetho's Lists, 359. 

F. The Old Chronicle, 377. 

G. Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, 378. 
H. Manetho, according to Josephus, 383. 
I. Chinese Astronomy, .391. 

J. Superficial Character of Diversities between Races, J 
K. Variations in Species among Domestic Animals, 401. 
L. Visit of Dionusos to India, 412. 
M. Chinese Theology, 413. 
JN'. The Celts in Europe, 417. 



The Sunday-School Commentary. 



THE KE¥ TESTAMENT; 

With Notes, Pictorial Illustrations, 
AND References. 

By Rev. Israel P. Warren, D. D. 

The first volume of this work embraces the Gospels and Acts of the Apos- 
tles. It is designed to be a concise yet complete commentary, exhibiting 
the results of the best and most recent biblical scholarship, as given by 
Alford, Lange, Olshausen, Tholuck, Trench, Stuart, Robinson, Hackett, 
and others. The notes are both explanatory and practical. 

The text of the Gospels is divided into sections numbered to correspond 
to a Chronological Harmony given in tabular form. An Alphabetical In- 
dex is appended, by which the leading events and topics can be referred to 
without the aid of a Concordance. 

Numerous pictorial illustrations are given, chiefly of eastern customs and 
places. Also three maps : i Colored Map of Palestine : 2. The Sea of 
Galilee and the surrounding Region : 3. The missionary journeys of the 
apostle Paul. 

The first volume is complete in itself, and is now ready. The second 
is in course of preparation. 

The fact that this work was first published by the American Tract Society 
(Boston) is a sufficient guaranty of its merit and its theological soundness. 

It is believed to be one of the most convenient, complete, and inexpensive 
aids in family and Sabbath-school instruction to be found. 

Pubhshed by Lee & Shepakd, Boston ; and Lke, Shepard & Dilling« 
HAM, New York. Price, $2.00. 

For sale also by Broughton & Wvman, 13 Bible House, New York ; 
H. A. Sumner, 110 Dearborn St., Chicago, 111. ; and by the Author, 52 
Washington Street, Boston. 

1 



Testimonies of eminent clergymen to Dr. 
Warren's Sunday-School Commentary on the 
New Testament. 

Rev. E. N. Kirk, D. D. 

" I am witness to the fidelity and diligence, the scrupulous care "anf* 
sense of responsibility of the author, in preparing a popular exposition o' 
the four Gospels. Others have labored in the same field, none, I believf 
with greater advantages or success than he. The degree of examinatio' 
I have given to the work authorizes me to join with my brethren in com 
mending it to the confidence of the churches. Without denominationa 
bias, it IS true to the doctrinal teachings of our common Christianity." 

Rev. N. Adams, D. D. 

" It is one of the most perfectly made books I ever saw. Externally, its 
shape and binding are all that one could desire, and within, it bears the 
marks of superior editorial ability and good taste. The notes show careful 
research, good judgment, power of condensation, tact, and, it seems to me, 
will generally commend themselves to impartial readers. I especially like 
the practical thoughts. Viewed as a reprint of the New Testament text, 
it is a convenient and pleasant volume to handle and to use in common 
reading, as well as for critical purposes." 

Rev. E. B. Webb, D. D. 

" The Commentary is in sympathy with the text. It is all laconic, con- 
densed, and yet not barren, for often a great deal of critical information 
and the result of extensive reading is packed away in a single line. There 
is no prolix discussion of any thing, but often great force and energy in a 
single practical reflection, and every now and then a happy turn of good 
common sense in paralyzing an objection that can not be removed. It 
seems to me now that this Commentary will have a place and meet a want 
beyond what has been anticipated." 

Rev. Wm. Hague, D. D. 

" I am free to express my high appreciation of the scholarly diligence, 
discrimination and power of condensed statement, which the work exhibits 
firom the beginning to the end. Distinguished by these qualities in a high 
degree, and complete in one volume, it is well suited to meet a want that is 
widely felt. At the same time, the justness, aptness, and often the logical 
connection of the 'practical thoughts,' render the book eminently sug- 
gestive, and enhance its value as an aid to the Sunday-school teacher." 

Rev. Wm. Lamson, D. D. 

"The mechanical execution is admirable. The paper, type and illus- 
trations all give the eye pleasure. The notes, too, as far as we have exam- 
ined them, are judicious and clear, and the practical thoughts at the close 
of the chapters are natural and pertinent. There is a great deal of con- 
densed information in the volume." 



Testimonies to Dr. Warren's Sunday-School 
Commentary. 

Rev. N. G. Clark, D. D., Secretary A. B. C. F. M. 
*' It is well suited to furnish the common mind with the best results 
of historical study and research upon this portion of the Scriptures, 
and with practical thou<j:hts and reflections of g-reat value. The get- 
ting up of the hook is admirable; the typography is a model of skill, 
and just the tiling for the purpose," 

Rev. S. G. Buckingham, D.D., Springfield, Mass. 
" It is elegantly got up. The notes are necessarily brief, but they 
are truly helps. The practical thoughts are excellent; they have some 
scope, and are sugg-estive. I hope you will go on and finish tlie whole 
Bible." 

Rev. Z. S. Barstow, D.D., Keetie, N. H. 
" It is not like a kernel of wheat in a bushel of chaff, but like * apples 
of gold in a net-work of silver.' " 

Rev. J. H. Thayer, Prof. Sacred Literature, Andover, Mass. 
" A very beautiful book it is, with its chronological harmony, index, 
and map, — quite a model of completeness. I think it cannot but con- 
tribute to cause tlie Word of God to have free course and be glorified." 

Rev. S. W. Hanks, Secretary A^n. Seamen's Friend Soc, Boston. 
" It is admirably adapted for use by Sabbath-school teachers and in 
families. The cream of the fuller commentaries is collected for the 
ready use of those who desire the sincere milk of the Word for their 
spiritual nourishment." 

Rev. C. E. Fisher, Lawrence, Mass. 
" I commend it to the confidence of all Bible readers as a critical, 
faithful, condensed, and valuable help to the study of God's Word." 

Rev. W. F. Snow, Lawrejice, Mass. 
"Considering its limited size, it comes nearest my ideal of a Com- 
mentary for popular use, of any which I have met." 

Rev. Thomas Wickes, D.D., Jainestown, N. T. 
" I esteem it a valuable addition to the existing aids for the study of 
the Scriptures, meeting the wants of that very large class in our 
churches who require an inexpensive Commentary, which at the same 
time contains a great deal, and within a brief compass presents those 
explanations of the text which are most needed." 

Rev. S. G. Willard, Colchester, Ct. 
" It more than answers my expectations. Concise, clear, telling- just 
what the common reader desires to know, giving results, but omitting 
the painful process, it must be a treasure to that large class who have 
neither time to use, nor money to buy extended commentaries." 

Rev. p. B. Davis, Canton, Mass. 
" I know not where else, in so small a space, so much of exegetical 
value can be found." 

3 



Testimonies to Dr. Warren's Sunday-School 
Commentary. 

Rev. F. B. Perkins, yamaica Plain ^ Mass. 
" I liked it when first published, and thoug-ht that in its special de- 
partment it had no equal, and I like it now. I have never seen reason 
to alter my opinion but for the better." 

Rev. Edward Ebbs, Aurora, III. 
"It is a very valuable work. I hope you maybe enabled to com- 
plete the whole Bible on a similar plan." 

Rev. Chas. U. Dunning, Pastor Meth. Church, Lawrence, Mass. 
" Happy in its divisions, unusually satisfactory in its comments, 
concise in its statements, and clear in its illustrations." 

Rev. E. G. Chaddock, Pastor Baptist Church, Lawrence, Mass. 
" It is such a work as every Sabbath-school teacher and scholar 
should have." 

Rev. H. N. Gates, Northfield, Ct. 
" I think it admirably adapted to the purpose for which it was de- 
signed. The notes are short, compact, and to the point, making clear 
what needs elucidation, and wisely letting' alone what had better be let 
alone. One of its most valuable features is the arrangement, by which 
a harmony of the Gospels is incorporated into the work, while the 
order of the text is left undisturbed." 

Rev. H. a. Cooke, Pastor Baptist Church, Laivrence, Mass. 
" I am pleased to add my testimony to its utility in the family and 
Sabbath-school. The Chronological Harmony cannot fail to be of 
great service to every student." 

Rev. D. C. Knowles, Pastor Meth. Church, Lawrence, Mass. 
" This Commentary is a work of decided merit. It is pointed and 
suggestive, striking the pith of the matter in a few concise sentences. 
The practical reflections are superior. The Alphabetical Index at the 
close will prove a most valuable aid in the study of the Life of our 
Saviour." 

Rev. E. p. McElroy, Sinclairville, N. T. 
" This book is all that it claims to be. I cordially commend it to all 
who may wish to secure, at small cost and in small compass, a Com- 
mentary replete with information, and enriched with those explanations 
and illustrations of the sacred text which are the result of the patient 
and careful study of the most eminent scholars." 

Rev. C. H. Corey, Seahrook, JV. H. 
" We have used them in our school [of colored students of theology 
in Virginia,] to great profit. The students are very much pleased with 
them, and have carried them away with them on their vacation. The 
notes, so concise and to the point, are not only valuable, but the book 
itself, by the plan on which it is constructed, has served admirably to 
instruct the students in the use of a Commentary." 



Notices by the press of Dr. Warren's Sun- 
day-school Commentary on the New Testament. 

The Boston Journal. 
It is in the best style of the book-making art. Its notes are brief, for the 
most part condensed and apposite. They evince' high scholarship, excel- 
lent judgment, and a correct ideal of what such a work should be. The 
page is exceedingly grateful to the eye, the catch-words are in larger type 
than the notes, and the illustrations, maps, &c. , are very neatly done. It is 
one of the finest works of the kind with which we are acquainted, and will 
be an invaluable aid to s tudents of the Bible and Sabbath-school teachers. 

The Congregational Quarterly. 
" Common sense, eminent scholarship, persevering industry', and a deep 
love of truth, and every other good quality of mind and heart, have been 
employed in explaining the great truths of revelation. The volume before 
us is beautifully printed and illustrated on fine, tinted paper, and contains 
the best efforts of the writer in making plain, in a few words, what might be 
obscure to the uneducated. The ' practical thoughts ' ' will be found very 
useful and suggestive." 

The Advance. 
"The author has condensed a large amount of information into his prefa- 
tory Chronological Harmony, introductions to the several books, foot-notes, 
and practical thoughts. He has made free use of the best critical works of 
modern scholars. A convenient index of subjects is appended. The typo- 
graphy and binding are very attractive." 

The S. S. Times. 
" The notes are models of brevity and point. Sound judgment seems to 
have been exercised as to the subjects for conunent. The cuts and maps 
are beautifully executed. The book is a marvel of beauty in its typographi- 
cal arrangements and execution. We should think this Testament would be 
admirably suited for family reading." 

The Watchman and Reflector. 
" We know of no similar work that approaches it for compactness of 
thought, clearness of exposiiion, and brevity of expression. We are sur- 
prised at the cleverness which compresses so much in so little space. For 
the family, for private reading, and for S. S. teachers, the work will be a 
valuable hand-book on the gospels." 

The Morning Star. 
"We have in this volume tlie text of the four gospels in large and clear 
type, accompanied with brief, comprehensive and pertinent notes and prac- 
tical suggestions, embodying the conclusions arrived at by the most emment 
Biblical scholars, and appropriate illustrations. Convenient in foim, attrac- 
tive iu appearance, and presenting the results of labored investigations so 
that they maybe comprehended at a glance, the work is in every way adapted 
for use in family devoiions and the Sabbath-school, and mects'a long exist- 
ing want. We predict for it an extensive circulation and £reat popularity, 
especially among those in advanced years." 

The Bibliotheca Sacra. 
"This Commentary is printed beautifully, and is well adapted to populai 
use." 



Notices by the Press of Dr'. Warren's Sun- 
day-School Commentary. 

The Christian Mirror. 

** We have been examining- this -work %vith much interest and satis- 
faction. Stripped of tJie verbiag-e which characterizes some larger 
works, and containing the most valuable exegetical and practical 
points presented by Alford, Lange, and other eminent scholars, we 
have an excellent manual for Sabbath-school teachers and all who 
desire an inexpensive, but helpful Commentary. It deserves a place in 
every parish library, and every teacher's hand." 

National Temperance Advocate. 

" A valuable companion to all Sabbath-school teachers, and parents, 
and those whose means, and learning, and time, do not admit of pa- 
tient, critical research." 

The Christian Era. 

" It will be found a valuable aid in the clear understanding- of the 
sacred text, and its brevity and conciseness will be a high recommen- 
dation to many. The works of the best scholars from which it has 
been chiefly drawn, are a good guarantee to its excellence in its inter- 
pretation of difficult passages. The design was evidently to make it 
as far as possible acceptable to all Christians of whatever name. The 
division into sections is a great advantag-e. The typography is in the 
highest style of elegance." 

The Christian Banner. 

" We are greatly pleased with this work. The qualities of clear- 
ness, condensation, and a careful selection of the passages and words 
that need comment, are conspicuous. We have very little chance to 
take exception to opinions or statements. We commend the Com- 
mentary warmly as being filled to the brim with just what is needed to 
help in the study of this interesting portion of the Bible. The 
whole volume is an exceedingly useful and convenient one for those 
-who are engaged in studying a aeries of lessons on the Life of Christ. 
The division into sections, with the references to the chronological 
harmony, is very valuable for this purpose." - 

The Religious Herald. 

" The object of this new Commentary is to aid readers of the Ne-vv 
Testament in learning its real meaning, and make the truths found the 
means of spiritual edification and salvation. It is \vell adapted to 
secure these ends, for it is carefully and judiciously prepared. The 
mechanical execution of the work is quite superior in all respects." 

The Pacific, San Francisco. 

" It is a help to both scholar and thinker, and will no doubt be read- 
ily sought after, as it embraces much that is valuable and interesting. 
It is finely illustrated, and contains a colored map of Palestine." 

6 



Notices by the Press of Dr. Warren's Sun- 
day-School Commentary. 

The Presbyterian. 

" The conclusions of the hitest and best Biblical scholars are given 
concisely but clearly. We most heartily commend the style in which 
the book is produced. When we remember how our great Societies 
and Boards were wont formerly to bring out their publications, and 
compare tliat with the present style, we are astonished at the advance." 

The American Presbyterian. 

"An admirably contrived apparatus for facilitating the study of the 
Scriptures. Its exterior is unusually attractive and elegant, the typog- 
raphy, presswork, and tinted paper, being among the finest specimens 
of the art. The notes are brief expositions of diilicult points, followed 
by equally brief and pointed suggestive practical comments on the 
principal ideas of the passage. Not a line of space is lost by unnec- 
essary multiplication of words. The student wlio has time to spare 
will be likely to find at once wiiat he needs. It embodies results rather 
than processes. An alphalietical index of subjects closes the volume, 
which is a credit to the Society issuing it, and which will be likely to 
gain wide popularity." 

Phila. Daily News. 

"The principal feature which commends it is the notes and illustra- 
tions, by which all things contain'id in the four (iospels are made plain 
to the popular mind. This publication will supply a much needed 
household want, and will doubtless be largely sold." 

The Evangelical Repository. 
"We have examined this volume with some care, and with much 
satisfaction. It is, we think, the most judicious Commentary in brief 
compass that we liave met with. It contains the results of the best 
critical authorities, ancient and modern. The practical lessons at the 
close of each chapter are comprehensive, and exceedingly plain and 
pointed. Families ani teachers that cannot afford a more extended or 
costly Commentary on tiie New Testament, cannot do better, in our 
judgment, than to" obtain this one. The volume sent us is printed in 
good, clear type, and is very handsomely bound. It contains a map, 
appropriate engravings, and a full Alphabetical Index. We cordially 
commend this work to the attention of our readers, especially to those 
who are engaged in teaching in the Sabbath-school." 

The Christian Guardian, Toronto. 
" It is a most valuable Commentary, admirably adapted to Sabbath- 
school and family use." 

Lima (iV. T.) Recorder. 
"The practical suggestions arc particularly valuable for their pointed 
earnestness, which brings the truth of the text home to the heart of 
the reader. It is eminently catholic in spirit, being free from denom- 
inational bias, yet true to the teachings of Orthodox Christianity. Its 
cheapness and wortli commend it to all." 

1 



Israel P. Warren, Publisher, Boston. 



The undersigned is publishing a Series of 

RELIGIOUS BOOKS FOR THE YOUNG, 

Both for Home iReading" and the 

Suncla,^^ Scliool TuHoT'sury, 

He will give his utmost care that all the publications 
bearing his name shall be of the veiy best. They will 
contain 

JVo Sensationalisms. 

2fo Strained and Unnatural Fictions, 

JVo Unsound Teachings, 

No Ziove Stories. 

No SECTA.ItIA.NISM. 

While of various authorship, they will all be revised 
and edited by himself, and made as perfect as possible in 
contents and artistic merit. 

He will also give his personal attention to the 

SELECTION OF S. S. LIBRARIES, 

always a delicate, and now more than ever difficult, task, 
in view of the great multiplication of books and authors. 
His selections will be made from the best stock of all the 
publishers in this country, and only those placed in his 
list which, from personal examination, he can certify to be 
good and safe books, worthy of admission to every family. 
They will be furnished at 

^^ The I^oTTest Prices. 

Send for terms to 

ISIl,-A.EL IP, -V^ .A. li li E 3Sr, 

c2 52 "WasMiigtoii Street, Boston. 






■;".^| 



\ i^i 






'■■ll 


w ^,., 






fe^M^Ii^: 




^55*^,^:: 




i^:^^'i..'^ 


'■•' ■:.ii 


^^^■..'■■'■.^. 


'"'■*'''^ 




■■■'^ 




' -i 


r^ 





W4fv^^. 



i.'-' 



^ s 



'«: 



TTy 



»& 



^«*fP»tI!l 






':iF 



«*i 






■>;? 









